Disposed

Dileep Gulabrao Kale v. the Principal Secretary - Law and Judiciary Department and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Aug 2009WP/1509/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition as withdrawn after the petitioner indicated they intended to challenge the Departmental Promotion Committee's decision of 17/1/08 via an original application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of as withdrawn; petitioner permitted to file an original application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.

Dileep Gulabrao Kale Vs the Principal Secretary - Law… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

mss

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1509 OF 2009

¶6

DILEEP GULABRAO KALE .. .. .. PETITIONER

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Principal Secretary, & Ors. .. .. RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. S. A. Sawant for the petitioner Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, AGP

¶10

CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A. A. SAYED, JJ.

¶11

DATED: 18/8/2009

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Original Application filed by the applicant was disposed of by the

¶14

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai ("M.A.T." for short) by passing the following order:

¶15

“In view of the letter dated 24.07.2007 addressed to Shri S. R.

¶16

Nargolkar, Special Counsel for respondents from the Secretary, Promotion Committee, Government Pleader’s Office, High Court, Mumbai, it is

¶17

¶18

evident that the meeting of the Promotion Committee was held on 20^th July, 2007 under the Chairmanship of the Learned Advocate General, Maharashtra and it was decided by the Committee to review the decision taken in earlier three meetings of the Promotion Committee. The communication is placed on record by Shri Nargolkar and the same is taken and made part of the record and marked ‘x’ for identification. Shri Chandratre, learned Counsel for the applicant also considered this letter. In our opinion in view of the communication dated 24^th July, 2007 the grievance of the applicant stand vindicated. Thus nothing remained to be decided by us in this O.A. Hence O.A. Stand dismissed accordingly.”

¶19

We are informed that after this order Departmental Promotion Committee took a review of the earlier three meetings and considered the petitioner's case for promotion and found him to be unfit. The meeting was held on 17/1/08.

¶20

We are informed by learned counsel Mr. Sawant on instructions from the petitioner that the petitioner has received the forwarding letter along with the communication addressed by the Secretary of the Departmental Promotion Committee to Mr. Nargolkar, learned A.G.P., High Court, Mumbai dated 24/7/07 and the minutes of the meeting held on 17/1/08 after he made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. He states

¶21

¶22

that the above papers were received by the petitioner on 1/9/09.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has instructed him to withdraw the present petition because the petitioner wants to challenge the aforementioned decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee in the M.A.T. Hence in our opinion, in the circumstances following order will meet the ends of justice:

¶24

"The petitioner, if he so desires may file an original application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, challenging decision dated 17/1/08 of the Departmental Promotion Committee. All contentions of both sides are kept open.

¶25

If there is any delay in filing the original application, the M.A.T. will consider it in accordance with law having regard to the fact that according to the petitioner he has received the impugned communication on 1/9/09.

¶26

Writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn.

¶27

(Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.)

Dileep Gulabrao Kale v. the Principal Secretary - Law and Judiciary Department and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep Gulabrao Kale v. the Principal Secretary - Law and Judiciary Department and Ors.

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

V. D. Haldavnekar Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Anr.

Kawadu Tulashiram Khandale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Harshvardhan Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shriram Keshav Bhagat and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Sant Ravidas Magasvargiya Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation Ltd. Vs Stateof Maharashtra and Ors.