Quashed

The Municipal Commissioner - Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai and Anr. v. Swapnil v Tempe and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Dec 2008WP/8136/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai filed a writ petition against an order of the State Human Rights Commission. The Coram held the Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the matter lies within service jurisdiction. The order was quashed and set aside, with respondents directed to approach the appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 28th November 2006 passed by the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission was quashed and set aside.

The Municipal Commissioner - Municipal Corporation of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.8136 OF 2006.

¶4

The Municipal Commissioner, the Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai, Mumbai & Anr.

¶5

..Petitioner.

¶6

v/s.

¶7

Swapnil V. Tempe & Anr.

¶8

..Respondents.

¶9

Mr.A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate, with A.J. Bhoir, i/b. S.H. Ujjainwala, for the Petitioner. Mr.R.M. Jaykar, i/b. M/s. Jaykars, for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶10

CORAM : J.N.PATEL & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 10TH DECEMBER, 2008.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Heard.

¶14

This petition has been filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, impugning the order dated 28th November 2006 passed by the Hon’ble Acting Chairperson of the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, Mumbai, thereby directing the Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, to allow the candidates who have passed their written tests, those who have passed their S.S.C. or equivalent or higher examination without Marathi as language before 1997 and who have appeared for the interview and if they are selected or those selected should be placed with the undertaking that they must pass their Marathi language

¶15

-2-

¶16

examination	within	two	years	from	th	e da	te of	appoi	ntment
in the	Organi	sation.	How	ever,	that	this	order	should	be
implemented	imme	diately	and	it	is	also	seen that		these
two can	didates	who	presen	ted	this	petition	befo	re	the
Commission	be	allowed	to		appear	for	their	p	ersonal
interview	without	delay	for	one	or	other	reason	and	that
the order	be	complied	scrupu	lously	an	d be	commu	nicated	to

¶17

the Commission by the Municipal Commissioner of the

¶18

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.

¶19

Mr. Jaikar, the learned counsel for the respondent who is beneficiary to the impugned order submits that the respondents may be permitted to seek appropriate remedy in the matter and they do not want to prosecute their case pursuant to the impugned order that they would withdraw their application filed before the

¶20

State Human Rights Commission which lead to the passing

¶21

of the impugned order.

¶22

Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai submits that in such a factual situation, it will be proper to

¶23

quash and set aside the impugned order as it would

¶24

subserve the interest of justice.

¶25

In view of the submissions made by the learned

¶26

-3-

¶27

counsel	for	the respon	dents	in	who	se	benefi	t the	impugned
order	has	been passed,	this	Cou	rt w	ould	like	to mak	e it
clear	that	the im	pugned	order	has	been	pa	ssed by	the
State	Human	Rights	Com	mission		without		having	jurisdiction
to	entertain	such p	etitions	and	th	erefore,	i	t will	have
to	be str	uck down.		This	Court,	ther	efore,	quash	and set
aside	the	impugned	order	in	view	of	the	fact that	this
Court	has	observed	that	the	impug	ned	ord	er has	been
passed	by	the	State	Human	Rig	hts	Co	mmission	granting
reliefs	which	squarely		lies	in t	he do	main	of	service
jurisdiction.		The	respo	ndents	are	free	to	approach	an

¶28

appropriate Forum having jurisdiction in the matter

¶29

without prejudice to their rights and contentions.

¶30

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

[S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.]

¶32

[J.N.PATEL, J.]

The Municipal Commissioner - Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai and Anr. v. Swapnil v Tempe and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Municipal Commissioner - Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai and Anr. v. Swapnil v Tempe and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malan Indrajeet Markad Vs the Branch Manager-Lic Housing Finance Ltd. and Anr.

Parmeshwar Bhagwan Ankushrao Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramesh Nana Chikhale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dholya Dosan Abel Vs Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Mirabai Nirmal Singh Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kailash Shyamlal Vasvani Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.