Allowed

Dayanand Maharaj Bahu Uddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha Bhokardan v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Apr 2010WP/3130/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed a writ petition by a social service organization seeking reconsideration of a proposal. The court directed State respondents to decide the proposal afresh in accordance with law by May 31, 2010, relying on a prior Division Bench judgment on similar facts.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed; respondents directed to decide the proposal afresh in accordance with law by 31/5/2010 and communicate the decision.

Dayanand Maharaj Bahu Uddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3130 OF 2010

¶4

Shri	Dayanand Maharaj Bahu-uddeshiya	}
Seva	bhavi Sanstha, Bhokardan	}
Thro	ugh its President	}
Sure	sh S/o Pandharinath Talekar	}
Age :	31 Years, Occ. Agri/ & Social	}
Work	er, R/o : Ganpati Galli, Bhokardan,	}
Tq.	Bhokardan, Dist. : Jalna.	}	....PETITIONER
	*V E R S U S*
1.	The State of Maharashtra	}
	Through its Secretary	}
	School Education & Sports	}
	Department, Govt. of Maharashtra	}
	Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.	}
2.	The Director of Education,	}
	Secondary and Higher Secondary,	}
	Education Department,	}
	State of Maharashtra,	}
	Pune – 1.	}
3.	The Deputy Director	}
	Education Department,	}
	Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.	}
	Dist. Aurangabad.	}
4.	The Education Officer (Secondary)	}
	Zilla Parishad, Jalna.	}
	Tq. & Dist. : Jalna.	}	.... RESPONDENTS

¶5

¶6

Mr. G.V.Patil, Advocate for petitioner.

¶7

Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State.

¶8

CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ.

¶9

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 23/04/2010

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER – P.V.HARDAS, J.)

¶11

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

¶12

the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶13

We have heard Mr. G.V.Patil, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State.

¶14

The learned counsels for the parties agree that the controversy raised in the present petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 355 of 2010 - Asha Sevabhavi Sanstha V/s The State of Maharashtra and 4 others and other companion petitions dated 8/4/2010 . Pursuant to the said Judgment, learned Assistant Govt. Pleader on behalf of respondent – State states that the respondents would decide the proposal submitted by the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law by 31/5/2010.

¶15

¶16

We accordingly allow this petition and direct the respondents to decide the proposal of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law, by 31/5/2010 and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner.

¶17

Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no

¶18

order as to costs.

¶19

[ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ]

¶20

JUDGE JUDGE

¶21

knp/WP 3130.10 ( J )

Dayanand Maharaj Bahu Uddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha Bhokardan v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayanand Maharaj Bahu Uddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha Bhokardan v. the State of Mah 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

Pandharinath Namdeorao Shitole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sillod Shikshan Sanstha through President Janardhan Laxman Mhaske and Anr. Vs Snehalata Shriivas Dashrathe and Ors.

Sillod Shikshan Sanstha through President Janardhan Laxman Mhaske and Anr. Vs Snehalata Shriivas Dashrathe and Ors.

Dattatraya Dnyaneshwar Zende Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Renuka Magasvarigya Education Society Aurangabad Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Renuka Magasvargiya Education So Lalwadi Vs the State of Mah and Ors.