Dismissed

Mahadeo Tukaram Waghmode v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Sept 2008WP/6506/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition challenging an order dismissing the petitioner's appeal for pension benefits. The Court held that concurrent findings of fact by lower authorities regarding the petitioner's child's date of birth should not be interfered with under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the government order dismissing the appeal was dismissed.

Mahadeo Tukaram Waghmode Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6506 OF 2008

¶4

Mahadeo Tukaram Waghmode . ......Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & ors.)........ Respondant.

¶7

Smt. S.V. Sonawane for the Petitioner Mr. Anant Vadgoankar for respondent no.2. Mr. V. P. Malvankar AGP for the State.

¶8

CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J., &

¶9

A.P. DESHPANDE, J.

¶10

DATED: 19th SEPTEMBER, 2008.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. The challenge in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to take exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra Government dated 27^th June 2008. By this order the appeal preferred by the petitioner as per Mumbai Ghram Panchayat Act 1958 u/s. 39(c)(3) was dismissed.

¶13

There is no dispute to the fact that the order of dismissal is under challenge in this Petition. However the only question which is primarily based on factual aspect is whether the third child of the petitioner was born on 13-01-2003 as stated by

¶14

¶15

the respondent or in the year 2000 as submitted by the present petitioner. All the authorities concerned have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the child was born on 13-01-2003. The petitioner had taken up various grounds in the appeal, which all were dealt with elaborately by order dated 26^th June 2008. It will be useful to refer to the concluding finding recorded by the last authority which reads as under:

¶16

“The order passed by the Additional District Collector, Solapur being No. 20/07 dated 16^th January 2008 is continued i.e. It is valid.”

¶17

The finding of fact concurrently arrived at by the authorities below do not call for any interference in accordance with the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further more, we are unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the finding recorded are patently purverse. Infact they are based upon the documents produced before the authority. Hence there is no merit. Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶18

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶19

A.P. DESHPANDE, J.

Mahadeo Tukaram Waghmode v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadeo Tukaram Waghmode v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nilesh Bhise Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Balasaheb @ Arun Y. Klkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

General Secretary - Nagrik Sahayya Kendra and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Wallams (India) Agro Products and Power Ltd. Vs Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Komal Yashwant Chawre Vs Dean/ Principal - Yerala Trusts Dental College and Ors.

Mr Nikumbh Praveen Motiram Vs College of Physicians and Surgeons of Bombay and Ors.