Partly allowed

Dr. Khevna Ravisankar Pujari and Anr. v. the Administrator Union Territory Adn Ors.

Bombay HC28 Mar 2011WP/293/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal writ petition under Article 226 seeking police protection, safe accommodation, and reinstatement. Court accepted respondent's undertaking to provide police protection on application, allowing the specific prayer for protection. Other reliefs dismissed as not pressed.

What did the court decide?

Relief for police protection granted on applicant's application against requisite charges; other reliefs dismissed not pressed.

Dr. Khevna Ravisankar Pujari and Anr. Vs the… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2011)

spb/-

wp293-11.sxw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 293 OF 2011

¶6

Dr. Khevna Ravisankar Pujari & Anr. ... Petitioners .

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The Administrator, Office of the Aministrator, Union Territory, Damen Dadra & Nagar Haveli and others. ... Respondents.

¶9

Mr. E.A. Sasi, for the Petitioners. Mrs. S.V. Gajare, APP for the State. Mr.D.A.Nalawade for the Respondent Nos. 1,6 & 7.

¶10

CORAM : P. V. HARDAS & M.N.GILANI,JJ. DATE : 28TH MARCH, 2011.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶13

2 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for following reliefs :

¶14

A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus, certiorari or any such other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents Nos. 6 and 7 or to such other appropriate officers to provide adequate protection and

spb/-

wp293-11.sxw

assistance to the Petitioners and to ensure their peaceful stay at their respective premises at Silvassa i.e. at 1^st floor, Shivam Bunglow, Opposite Dilip Parmar’s Residence, Vrundavan Society, Silvassa or at such other place as they may shift to, without any hindrance from the Respondent No.3 and 5 and /or their agents, servants or hirelings;

¶19

B) This Hon’ble Court may be further pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus, certiorari or any such other writ or order directing the Respondent No. 1,2,3 and 4 to allow the Petitioners to resume their employment in various capacities i.e. (a) to allow the Petitioner No.1 to resume as (1) Visiting Consultant in Radiology Department, (2) Consult in Sonography Department and (3) as a Consultant for X-ray as per the four different Contracts of Employment already executed by Respondent No.2 with the Petitioner No.1 and (4) as a CT Scan Consultant with the Respondent No.4 as per the Contract of Employment entered into with the Petitioner No.1; and (b) to allow the Petitioner No.2 to resume as (1) X-Ray Technician with the Respondent No.2 as per the Contract of Employment already executed by Respondent No.2 with the Petitioner No.2 and (2) as a CT Scan Technician with the Respondent No.4 as per the Contract of Employment entered into with the Petitioner No.2; either as per the existing contracts and/or as per the renewed contract as the case may be;

¶20

C) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate

spb/-

wp293-11.sxw

writ, order or direction to all the Respondents to ensure that either the Respondent No.3 and 5 by themselves and/or to their servants or any person acting on their behalf and/or any of the servants of the Respondent No.2 hospital shall cause any hindrance of whatsoever nature to the Petitioners in their dayto-day functioning and carrying on their duties in the said Hospital;

¶25

D) This Hon’ble Court may be further pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to ensure that all the articles and personal belongings of the Petitioners, presently lying at Shiri Vinoba Bhave Hospital and/or at their place of residence are received back by the Petitioners and further directions to protect the person as well as the property and other belongings of the Petitioners; E) .. .. ... ..... F) ... ... .....

¶26

3 Learned counsel for the respondents, who has filed the affidavit in reply has stated on instructions that the respondents are willing to provide the police protection to the petitioners as and when required by them on an application being submitted by the petitioners on payment of requisite charges. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the court. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that in that light of the matter, the relief which the petitioners have prayed for at prayer clause (A) stands granted to them.

spb/-

wp293-11.sxw

4 In respect of the other reliefs, the learned counsel for the petitioners pray for withdrawal of the aforesaid reliefs with liberty to file appropriate application before the competent court/forum. In that light of the matter, this writ petition is partly allowed in terms of prayer clause (A) of the petition, on the basis of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents. The petition stands dismissed as not pressed in respect of the other reliefs with liberty as prayed for.

¶31

[M.N.GILANI,J.] [P.V. HARDAS, J.]

¶32

.....

Dr. Khevna Ravisankar Pujari and Anr. v. the Administrator Union Territory Adn Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Khevna Ravisankar Pujari and Anr. v. the Administrator Union Territory Adn 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

Laxmibai Babaram Chikhalkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sayed Ghulam Abbas Kazmi Vs H.H.J Shri M.L. Tahiliyani and Anr.

Shailesh S/O.Rajnikant Kamdar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Halima Mohmad Usman Bagwan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chapalendu Dutta Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satishkumar R. Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra