Dismissed

Vaibhav Vivek Swami v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Sept 2012WP/3824/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a Government Resolution directing he share a cash prize of Rs. 1,00,000 with another reporter. The Court held that no vested right exists to retain the prize solely and dismissed the writ petition refusing interference in the administrative decision.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed holding that the petitioner has no vested right to the cash prize and the State's decision to share the award lies within its domain.

Vaibhav Vivek Swami Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp3824.12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.3824 OF 2012

¶6

Vaibhav s/o Vivek Swami,

¶7

R/o-Chatrapati Colony,
Behind Tahsil Office,
Near Dr. Barkul Hospital, Beed,
Tq. & Dist-Beed.

¶8

...PETITIONER.

¶9

 VERSUS

¶10

1) The State of Maharashtra, Through it's Secretary,

¶11

Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032,

¶12

2) State Level Felicitation Committee, Mahatma Gandhi Tantamukti Village Scheme, Through its Member Secretary, i.e. Joint Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032,

¶13

3) The Divisional Felicitation Committee, Mahatma Gandhi Tantamukti Village Scheme, Through its Member Secretary,

¶14

Dy. Director, Information & Public Relations, Aurangabad.

¶15

4) Director General of Police,

¶16

Police Headquarters, Mumbai-400 032,

¶17

5) Superintendent of Police, S.P. Office, Barshi Road,

¶18

Beed, Tq. & Dist-Beed,

¶19

wp3824.12

¶20

¶21

6) Sandeep s/o Shriram Bedre, R/o-Kranti Nagar, Behind Tahsil Office, Beed, Tq. & Dist-Beed.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS.

¶23

 ...
 Shri.S.G. Chapalgaonkar Advocate for
 Petitioner.
 Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos. 1 to 5.
 Shri. Rahul Awasarmol Advocate h/f. Shri.
 Angad L. Kanade Advocate for Respondent No.6.
 ...

¶24

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
 A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.

¶25

 DATE : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2012.

¶26

PER COURT :

¶27

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective

¶28

parties.

¶29

2. The Petitioner was awarded certificate

¶30

and a cash prize of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One

¶31

Lakh) under a Government Resolution dated 9th August, 2011, for meritorious work in effective implementation of the scheme, known as “ TANTA

¶32

wp3824.12

¶33

¶34

MUKTI ABHIYAN ”. By Government Resolution dated 20th January, 2012, the cash prize was directed to be shared by the Petitioner and Respondent No.6. The Petitioner has questioned the Government's decision in this Writ Petition.

¶35

3.The State filed affidavit in reply. In
Para-4 of the reply, the deponent contends that:

¶36

“4. I say and submit that in

¶37

theirmeetingheldon

¶38

25.7.2011, the divisional level
committee at Aurangabad had
takenadecisionand

¶39

recommended that Mahatma Gandhi

¶40

Tanta Puraskar, for the year
2010-2011,shouldbe

¶41

distributed between petitioner
Shri. Vaibhav Vivek Swami,

¶42

reporter, Dainik Ekmat, Beed

¶43

and Shri Sandeep Shriram Bedre,

¶44

wp3824.12

¶45

¶46

reporter, Dainik Marathwada

¶47

Sathi, Beed as they were having

¶48

equal aggregate marks. However,

¶49

theState-levelCommittee
decidedtogivefirst

¶50

prize/award of Rs.1 lakh to
petitioner Shri Vaibhav Vivek
Swami and accordingly the

¶51

Government Resolution, in this

¶52

regard, was issued on 9.8.2011”

¶53

4.We have heard the submissions advanced,
perused the record. We find that the State ought
to have taken appropriate decision in advance. It
is informed that the Committee, constituted of
responsible officers, takes decision in this
regard. In the facts of the case, we find that the
Petitioner cannot claim vested right to retain the
cash prize. The learned A.G.P. submits that no
sooner the State Authorities were appraised of the
factsof the case, the Government reviewed its

¶54

wp3824.12

¶55

¶56

decision and issued a fresh Government Resolution.

¶57

5.In the facts of the case, no

¶58

interference, therefore, is warranted in exercise
of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of

¶59

India. The Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶60

[A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]

¶61

asb/SEPT12

Vaibhav Vivek Swami v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhav Vivek Swami v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Snehal Vishavjit Khadke Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vasant Rohidas Patil Died Thr Lrs Nirmala Vasant Patil and Ors. Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer(General) Dhule and Ors.

Bhagwat Gunderao Musane Vs the President Kisan Shikshan Prasarak Mandals Vidyavardhini Primary School Udgir and Ors.

Dilip Namdeo Wani and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Indus Towers Limited Pune and Ors. Vs the Commissioner Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporation Nanded and Anr.

Bharat Ramkisan Shingade Vs Sadanand Koche, Collector, Beed and Ors.