Disposed

Harshal Motilal Thakur v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Mar 2012WP/1583/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed respondent authorities not to take coercive action against the petitioner and to allow him to pursue BDS studies while a constraint was imposed on the committee to decide the tribe claim within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents 1-3 to allow prosecution of BDS course and refrain from coercive action; directed respondent 4 to decide tribe claim within six months.

Harshal Motilal Thakur Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

WP 1583/12

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1583/2012 Harshal Motilal Thakur V/s The State & others.

¶6

|
Office Notes, Office
||_________________
| |---|---| |Memoranda of Coram,
|
appearances, Court's
||
Court's or Judge's orders
| |orders or directions
||| |and Registrar's orders
|||

¶7

Shri S.S. Phatale, Advocate h/f Shri Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner.

¶8

Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. Shri S.S. Tope, Advocate for respondent no.4.

¶9

CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶10

Date: 22.03.2012

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

By way of present petition, the petitioner impugns the communications dated 19.10.2011 and 11.11.2011 issued by the respondent no.3 stating therein that on failure of the petitioner to submit the validity certificate, eligibility would not be granted to

WP 1583/12

him.

It is not in the hands of the petitioner as to within how much period the respondent no.4 should decide the tribe claim of the petitioner and for failure of the respondent no.4 to decide the claim expeditiously or within a stipulated period, the petitioner should not suffer.

¶18

The petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the respondent nos.1 to 3 not to take any coercive action against the petitioner for failure to submit tribe validity certificate till the claim of the petitioner is decided by the respondent no.4. The respondent nos.1 to 3 are directed to allow to prosecute his studies of BDS course, appear for examinations and declare his results.

¶19

The respondent no.4 - committee is directed to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within a period of six months from today. The petitioner is directed to cooperate the respondent no.4 in deciding his claim. If the decision of the respondent no.4 goes

¶20

WP 1583/12

¶21

¶22

against the interest of the petitioner, the said decision shall not take effect for a period of four weeks from the date of its communication to the petitioner.

¶23

Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

¶24

(Sunil P. Deshmukh, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) Dt/- 22.03.2012 ndk/c223124

Harshal Motilal Thakur v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshal Motilal Thakur 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

Balasaheb Shrirangrao Samale Vs Parbhani Municipal Corporation Thr Auth Officer/Mun Commissioner and Ors.

The Ahmednagar District Central Co. Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Asma Shaheen Abdul Hameed. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gramvikas Education Society Shirasmani Dist Jalgaon Thr Member Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gaurav Shaikshanik and Samajik Bhauddeshiya Vikas Mandal, Mhasadi Thru Secretary Depak Tukaram Deor Vs the Member Secretary and Ors.

Indus Towers Limited Vs the State of Mah and Ors.