Disposed

Raur Nyaju Patel v. the State of Lmaharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Jul 2012PIL/5/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the petitioner sought directions to conduct an inquiry and expunge comments in an official communication authored by Respondent No.4 regarding the petitioner. The court directed the Director of Health Services to call for records and pass orders within two months while leaving the issue open.

What did the court decide?

Directed Director of Health Services, Mumbai to call for entire record, hear parties and pass appropriate orders within two months.

Raur Nyaju Patel Vs the State of Lmaharashtra and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 PIL 5 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Public Interest Litigation No.5 of 2012

¶4

Rauf s/o Nyaju Patel. .. Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents.

¶7

Shri. S.D. Hiwrekar, Advocate, for petitioner.

¶8

Shri. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶9

Shri. U.B. Bondar, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶10

Shri. Gajanan Kadam, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶11

CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & U.D. SALVI, JJ. DATE : 26^th JULY 2012

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Heard.

¶14

The petitioner is seeking directions to conduct

¶15

enquiry against the respondent No.4. The petitioner has

¶16

referred to a communication made by the Chief Executive

¶17

Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad addressed to the

¶18

2 PIL 5 of 2012

¶19

Director of Health Services, Mumbai dated 20^th January 2011. The petitioner has raised serious objection to the communication made by the respondent No.4 in his capacity as Deputy Director of Health Services. The said communication was made by the respondent No.4 on 25^th January 2011 to the Director of Health, Mumbai. The objection of the petitioner is that the respondent No.4 in his capacity as Deputy Director had scrutinized the file concerning himself and had opined about the issue in writing in a letter addressed to the Director of Health Services, Mumbai.

¶20

The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that, the communication dated 25^th January 2011 made by respondent No.4 in the capacity as Deputy Director was by way of forwarding of the opinion of the subordinate officers and explaining the facts of the case.

¶21

Considering the material placed on record in its entirety and the facts emerging out of the record we find that, the respondent No.4 should have abstained himself from making any comments in respect of issue concerning

¶22

3 PIL 5 of 2012

¶23

respondent No.4 which was reflected in the communication made by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad made to the Director of Health Services Mumbai on 20^th January 2011.

¶24

We are not inclined to comment anything further in the matter. We direct the Director Health Services, Mumbai to call for entire record and after considering the same and hearing necessary parties pass appropriate orders in respect of the communication made by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Aurangabad (Exhibit "J" to this petition). We direct the Director of Health Services, Mumbai to pass appropriate order within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. All issues are kept open.

¶25

The petition is disposed of. Authenticated copy of the order be given to the Assistant Government Pleader.

¶26

Sd/- Sd/- (U.D. SALVI, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)

¶27

rsl

Raur Nyaju Patel v. the State of Lmaharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raur Nyaju Patel v. the State of Lmaharashtra 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

Mira Bhayander Jagruti Sanstha and Anr. Vs Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Sahyog Trust Thr. Its Trusty R Bhusari Vs Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corpn. and Anr.

Prakash S/O Bhagwatrao Jadhav Vs State of Mah. Thr. Secty. and Ors.

Sai Chinnaswamy Mudaliar Vs State of Mah., Thr. Secy., Urban Develoopment Deptt. Mantralaya, Mumbai

Anand Narayanrao Jammu Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Shri Jitendra S/O Bhaorao Kapse Vs the Secretary, Revenue Department and 9 Others

Sunil Baldeorao Kharate Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Chief Secretary and 8 Others

Shri. Rajkumar Parmeshwar Koli and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation, Solapur and Ors.

Rani Laxmibai Shikshan Sanstha Nanded Thr Secretary Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashok Sudhakar Palve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt Kamalbai Radhakisan Gite Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Pandurang Nivrutti Mone Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Saroj Wd/O Dinkar Dorle Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Raghunath Rangnath Thange Vs the State of Mah and Ors.