The High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, summarily rejected a writ petition as the petitioner was found to have no locus standi to challenge the appointment of a person to a school principal position without showing direct concern.
Writ petition summarily rejected for lack of locus standi.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5985 OF 2010
Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders
1
Mr. R.K. Ashtekar, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent No.1 Mr. G.D. Kale, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 Mr. R.T. Nagagargoje, Advocate for respondent No.6.
CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE :- 13th December, 2010.
PER COURT :-
1] The petitioner herein has challenged the approval granted in favour of the respondent No.6. The only pleading pertaining to locus in the petition is that the petitioner is the member of the Trust, which runs the respondent No.4 school. The petitioner neither claims appointment on the post on which the respondent No.6 is appointed, nor he is in a position to show as to how he is directly concerned with the case.
2] In that view of the matter, we do not find any locus in the petitioner to file the instant petition. The writ petition is summarily rejected.
grt/-
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5985 OF 2010
Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the appointment/approval of the school principal.
Petitioner
Respondent No.6 (School)
Respondent No.1 (School)
B.R. GAVAI
R.M. BORDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
