Partly allowed

Maharashtra Shikshan Sanstha Thr. Managing Trustees v. Gulab Govind Jondhale and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jan 2012WP/7780/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed a writ petition dismissing an application by the trial Court for production of documents. The Court directed the petitioners to produce certified copies of documents already ordered in a separate provision, as the State affidavit stated originals were destroyed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners are directed to produce certified copies of the documents detailed in the Court's order dated 1.12.2010 in W.P.No.1948/10.

Maharashtra Shikshan Sanstha Thr. Managing… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 W.P.No.7780/11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

¶3

BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7780 OF 2011.

¶6

1. Maharashtra Shikshan Sanstha,
Nimgaon-Jali, Tal.Sangamner,
Dist.Ahmednagar, through its
Managing Trustees.

¶7

A. Motiram S/o Tryambak Patil,
Age 68 years, Occ.Agril.,
R/o Ugaon, Tal.Niphad,
Dist.Nashik.

¶8

B. Dattatraya S/o Dagdu Gulve,
Age 56 years, Occ.Service,
R/o Pravaranagar, Tql.Rahata,
Dist.Ahmednagar.

¶9

C. Bhaskar S/o Mahipati Jondhale,
Age 82 years, Occ.Agril.,

¶10

D. Shivaji S/o Savleram Chopde,
Age 71 years, Occ.Agri.,

¶11

E. Sukhdeo S/o Chandrabhan Dengle,
Age 71 years, Occ.Agri.,

¶12

Petitioner Nos.1C to 1E
R/o Nimgaon-Jali, Tal.Sangamner,
Dist.Ahmednagar. ...Petitioners.

¶13

Versus

¶14

1. Gulab S/o Govind Jondhale,
Age 65 years, Occ.Agril.,
R/o Ugaon, Tal.Niphad,
Dist.Nashik.

¶15

2 W.P.No.7780/11

¶16

2. Kashinath S/o Baburao Bhutkar,
Age 71 years, Occ.Agril.,
R/o Dongargaon, Tal.Ahmednagar,
Dist.Ahmednagar.

¶17

3. Kashinath S/o Dagdu Wani,
Age 71 years, Occ.Agril.,
R/o Wadgaon-Tandali, Tal.
Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar.

¶18

4. Shahurao S/o Madhavrao Sule,
Age 71 years, Occ.Agril.,
R/o Chandanapuri, Tal.
Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar.

¶19

5. Laxman S/o Dashrath Birhade,
Age 74 years, Occ.Agril.,
R/o Plot No.72, Utkarsh Colony,
Golibar Maidan, Dhule,
Dist.Dhule.

¶20

6. Sakharam S/o Bhaguji Padalkar,
Age 65 years, Occ.Agri.,
R/o Talegaon Dighe, Tal.
Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar.

¶21

7. Bajirao S/o Baburao Bhutkar,
Age 63 years, Occ.Agril.,
R/o Talegaon Dighe, Tal.
Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar.

¶22

8. Balasaheb S/o Govind Jondhale,
Age 61 years, Occ.Agril.,
R/o Nimgaon-Jali, Tal.
Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar.

¶23

9. Rajaram S/o Dinkar Pangavhane,
Age 56 years, Occ.Agril.,
R/o Ugaon, Tal.Niphad,
Dist.Nashik.

¶24

10. Bhaurao S/o Yeshwant Kurhe,
Age 51 years, Occ.Agril.,
R/o Marhal, Tal.Sinner,
Dist.Nashik.

¶25

11. Nivrutti S/o Bhaurao Thete,
Age 61 years, Occ.Agril.,

¶26

3 W.P.No.7780/11

¶27

R/o Palkhed, Tal.Niphad,
Dist.Nashik.

¶28

12. Education Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar,
Ahmednagar.

¶29

13. Education Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nashik,
Nashik. ... Respondents.

¶30

Mr.H.D.Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.A.N.Nagargoje, advocate for the Respondent
Nos.1 to 5,7,9 and 11.
Mr.S.K.Tambe, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State.

¶31

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶32

 Date : 16.01.2012.

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶34

1.Heard.

¶35

2.Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the parties, the petition is taken
up for final hearing.

¶36

3.The petitioners assail the order passed
by the trial Court, rejecting the application of
the petitioners (Exh.127) for production of

¶37

4 W.P.No.7780/11

¶38

documents by the Respondent-State witness.

¶39

4.Mr.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that this Court vide order
dated 1.12.2010 passed in W.P.No.1948/2010, had
allowed the production of documents pertaining to
the appointments and approvals of Assistant
Teachers and staff for the period of 1998-99.
Thereafter, the witness summons were issued. The
witness did not produce on record the said
documents as referred to in Exh.93 and directed
by this Court. The petitioners filed application
Exh.127 for calling those documents from the
Respondent-State but the Court below erroneously
rejected the said application. According to the
learned counsel the same are relevant and
material. The learned counsel contends that the
State has filed affidavit before this Court
stating that said documents are not available.
The petitioners have received certified copies
from other proceedings and as such the
petitioners would file the same.

¶40

5.Mr.Nagargoje, learned counsel for

¶41

5 W.P.No.7780/11

¶42

Respondents submits that the petitioners have not
given any details of the documents and vide the
application Exh.127 is only making fishing
inquiry. The petitioners have to specify the
documents. The list given with Exh.127 shows
that even documents of 2008-2009 are called which
is not the subject matter of Exh.93. The said
documents can not be allowed to be produced. The
Court has rightly rejected the said application.

¶43

6.Mr.Tambe, learned Asstt.Govt. Pleader
has filed affidavit of Deputy Education Officer,
(Secondary), Zilla Parishad, stating that the
documents at pages 45 to 47 are not available and
are destroyed.

¶44

7.With the assistance of the learned
counsel, I have gone through the order and the
earlier order passed by this court below Exh.93.
This Court had allowed the application Exh.93 to
the extent it relates to the documents regarding
the appointments and approvals of Assistant
Teachers and staff for the period 1998 and 1999.
The list filed vide Exh.127 is exhaustive and

¶45

6 W.P.No.7780/11

¶46

also covers the documents apart from the
documents for the period of 1998-99. The said
documents now at this stage can not be considered
for passing any orders, as far as production is
concerned. Mr.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that he would restrict
the application Exh.127 to the extent of
documents as referred to in Exh.93, more
particularly, order dated 1.12.2010, passed by
this court in W.P.No.1948/10.

¶47

8.The production of the said documents is
already allowed. The State has come forward with
an affidavit that the said documents are not with
them. In light of that if the petitioners
produce the certified copies of the said
documents, no prejudice would be caused to any
party. The petitioners may produce the certified
copies of the documents as referred in the order
of this Court in W.P.No.1948/10. It is another
matter, how the said documents are required to be
proved. The trial Court shall consider about the
same.

¶48

7 W.P.No.7780/11

¶49

9.In view of the above, the Writ Petition
is partly allowed. The petitioners may produce
the certified copies of the documents which are
detailed in the order of this Court dated
1.12.2010 in W.P.No.1948/10. It is left open to
the trial Court to dialect on the manner of proof
of the said documents.

¶50

10.Rule accordingly made absolute in above
terms. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.

¶51

 (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶52

asp/office/wp778011

Maharashtra Shikshan Sanstha Thr. Managing Trustees v. Gulab Govind Jondhale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra Shikshan Sanstha Thr. Managing Trustees v. Gulab Govind Jondhale 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

Sarlabai Joseph Barnbas Vs Hussain Ramin and Ors.

Rajaram Pundlik Biradar Vs the Sec. Gramin Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Valandi and Ors.

Shaikh Rahimabegum Mainoddin Vs the Secretary, Adarsh Bahuudeshiya Shikshan Sanstha and Ors.

Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. Aurangabad Thr Br Manager Vs Atul Ratilal Chengede and Ors.

Syed Mumtaz Ali Mehmood Ali Vs Syed Zamin Ali S/O Syed Yunus Ali and Ors.

Balbhim Sukhdeo Limbkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.