Disposed

Bharati Dyandeo Mali v. the President/Secretatry, Nav Maharashtra Shikshan Sanstha and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Sept 2012WP/3016/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Third Respondent was unjustified in not deciding the Petitioner's representation after a previous commitment by the AGP. It directed the parties to appear for fresh directions and set a two-month timeline for the decision, keeping contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to appear with a representative of the First Respondent before the Third Respondent on 9 October 2012 for directions. The Third Respondent to take a decision within two months thereafter if

Bharati Dyandeo Mali Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

VBC

¶2

1/2 wp3016.12-24.9

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3016 OF 2011

¶5

Smt.Bharati Dyandeo Mali. Vs. The President/Secretary, Nav Maharashtra Shikshan Sanstha & Ors.

¶6

...Petitioner.

¶7

...Respondents.

¶8

Mr.Mihir Desai for the Petitioner. Mr.S.A.Rajeshirke for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms.S.S.Bhende, AGP for Respondent No.3.

¶9

..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶10

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

The grievance of the Petitioner is that despite a statement which was made on 18 January 2010 before a Division Bench of this Court by the AGP in an earlier Writ Petition¹ filed by the Petitioner, a representation submitted by the Petitioner has not been disposed of. We find from the record that on 1 December 2010, the Deputy Director of Education while referring to the earlier Writ Petition, directed the Education officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Sangli to take an appropriate decision. The grievance of the Petitioner is that no decision has been taken by the Education officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli, who has been impleaded to these proceedings as the Third Respondent. On the other hand, it is urged on behalf of the management that there is no substance in the representation submitted by the Petitioner on merits, in view of an order passed by the School Tribunal on 24 November 2008 in Contempt Application 7 of 2001.

¶13

1 Writ Petition 9013 of 2009

¶14

VBC 2/2 wp3016.12-24.9

¶15

In our view, since the Division Bench, by its earlier order dated 18 January 2010, had recorded the statement of the AGP that the representation submitted by the Petitioner would be disposed of and an outer limit of three months was laid down, there is no justification for the Third Respondent not to take a decision. The Deputy Director of Education has called upon him on 1 December 2010 to take a decision in accordance with law. We would have been otherwise constrained to take recourse to the contempt jurisdiction, but are desisting from doing so since it does not appear that the delay in this case is deliberate. The Learned AGP has assured the Court that she would address a communication to the Third Respondent forthwith so that he can arrive at an appropriate decision. We direct that the Petitioner and a representative of the First Respondent shall appear before the Third Respondent for directions on 9 October 2012 at 12 noon. The Petitioner would be at liberty to file a comprehensive representation afresh and if that is done on the date as set out hereinabove, the Third Respondent shall take a decision in accordance with law within a period of two months thereafter. The Petition is accordingly disposed of, keeping all the rights and contentions of the parties open. In the event that the Third Respondent does not communicate the decision within the time schedule indicated, the Petitioner would be at liberty to revive these proceedings.

Bharati Dyandeo Mali v. the President/Secretatry, Nav Maharashtra Shikshan Sanstha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharati Dyandeo Mali v. the President/Secretatry, Nav Maharashtra Shikshan Sanstha 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

Mansi Sunil Salunke Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Shri Krishna B.Narkar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ram Aasre Ramjas Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bharati Dyandeo Mali Vs the President/Secretatry, Nav Maharashtra Shikshan Sanstha and Ors.

Dr. Tanwangee Y. Joag Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.

Nagendra Krishna Jadhav Vs University Grants Commission, through Secretary and Ors.