Allowed

Ahmed Khuram Daanish Md. Waseem Ahmed v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Dec 2011WP/6978/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to correct the petitioner's name on Board records. The Board argued a three-year time limit under regulations and a 1990 circular. The Court held the relied-upon regulation was prospective, similar to a case (WP 6978.11 and others) decided earlier, and the regulation prevails over the circular. The rule was made absolute to correct the name.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute directing the Respondent No. 2 to correct the petitioner's name in terms of the prayer clause (B).

Ahmed Khuram Daanish Md. Waseem Ahmed Vs the State… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

(1) WP 6978.11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6978 OF 2011

¶4

Ahmed Khuram Daanish

¶5

Md. Waseem Ahmed PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS

¶8

.....

¶9

Mr. M.R. Sonawane, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State.
Mr. A.R. Nikam, Advocate for the respondent no.2
None present for respondent nos.4 and 5 though served.

¶10

.....

¶11

 DATED : 09TH DECEMBER, 2011

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

¶14

finally with the consent of the parties.

¶15

2.The petitioner is seeking a direction to the
respondent no.2-Maharashtra State Board of Secondary
and Higher Secondary Education through the Divisional
Secretary at Aurangabad, to correct the name of the
petitioner, as prayed.

¶16

3.The main contention of the respondent no.2
is that since the request is made after the lapse of

¶17

(2) WP 6978.11

¶18

three years, according to its regulation, no
correction can be made.

¶19

4.This Court has an occasion to deal with the
same issue regarding different petitioners in group
of Writ Petitions bearing Writ Petition no.972 of
2011 and others. It was held that the regulation in

¶20

which the reliance is placed in the Petitions is
prospective in nature and, therefore the earlier
cases are not covered by the said regulation. The
present Petition is also the case of the petitioner,
who is similarly situated. Therefore, the same order
will have to be passed in the present Petition also.

¶21

5.The learned counsel for the respondent no.2
however, submits that there is a circular dated
01.03.1990 which provide for time limit of three
years, and in view of that matter, no direction can
be issued. It is however, clear that between the
regulation and the circular, regulation framed by the
respondent no.2 would prevail.

¶22

6.In that view of the matter, the additional
reliance on the circular dated 01.03.1990 would not

¶23

(3) WP 6978.11

¶24

change the nature of the case. In the circumstances,

¶25

we pass the following order:-

¶26

I) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer

¶27

clause (B).

¶28

 Sd/- Sd/-

¶29

 [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
arp/

Ahmed Khuram Daanish Md. Waseem Ahmed v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahmed Khuram Daanish Md. Waseem Ahmed 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahatma Phule Sarvajanik Vachanalaya Lkarodi Sajapur Dist a.Bad Thr President Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sane Guruji Sarvajanik Vachanalaya Veetkheda Th Secretary Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Shri Sant Eknath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Eknathnagar Paithan Dist a.Bad Hr Incharge Managing D Vs Asstt Provident Fund Commissioner Sub Regional Office Cidco a.Bad and Ors.

Santosh Bhikaji Satpute Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sandeep Prakashrao Sabne Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Baliram Bhoju Rathod Vs the State of Mah and Ors.