Disposed

Babulal Uprade, Chairman, Panchayat Samiti, Salekasa, Tahsil Salekasa Dist Gondia v. State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary, Dept of Cooperation, Mantralaya Mumbai

Bombay HC23 Feb 2012WP/843/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a 1990 Notification regarding a substantial change in location. The bench permitted the petitioner to submit a representation to the Authority within one month and clarified that the Notification was not stayed. The petition was otherwise disposed of without further order.

What did the court decide?

Permission to make a representation to the Authority within one month; notification not stayed; petition otherwise disposed of.

Babulal Uprade, Chairman, Panchayat Samiti… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

2302wp843.12.odt

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.843 OF 2012.

¶5

Babulal Uprade and anr.

¶6

..vs.

¶7

State of Mah. through the Secretary, Deptt. Of Coop.and ors.

¶8

=-=-==-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders.

¶10

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶11

Mr.M.V.Samarth, Adv. for the petitioners. Ms Tajwar Khan,AGP for the State.

¶12

 C ORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR AND

¶13

P.B.VARALE, JJ.

¶14

DATED:23rd FEBRUARY, 2012.

¶15

By way of this petition, the petitioners are challenging the Notification issued in 1990. It is not in dispute that there was a stay order prevailing against the said Notification up to the year 2006. The grievance of the petitioners is that there is a substantial change in the location after 1990 and therefore, that Notification should not have been implemented today. So far as the said aspect is concerned, the petitioners are permitted to make an appropriate representation to the Authority pointing out this aspect and the concerned authority to decide the same within a period of one month after receipt of the same.

¶16

It is clarified that we have not stayed the Notification and it will be open to the Authority to proceed further on the basis of the Notification issued.

¶17

Subject to what is stated above, the petition is disposed of.

¶18

Steno copy of this order be supplied to the parties.

¶19

JUDGE JUDGE.

¶20

chute

¶21

2302wp843.12.odt 2

Babulal Uprade, Chairman, Panchayat Samiti, Salekasa, Tahsil Salekasa Dist Gondia v. State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary, Dept of Cooperation, Mantralaya Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babulal Uprade, Chairman, Panchayat Samiti, Salekasa, Tahsil Salekasa Dist Gondia v. State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary, Dept of Cooperation, Mantralaya Mumbai

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

Noble Explochem Limited, through Its Chairman and Executive Director Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation, through Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur and Ano

Little Flower English Convent Thr. Its President Vs the State Govt. Secondary Edun. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Bharat Nagar Nagrik Mandal Thr. Its Secty Vs the N.M.C. Thr. Its Municipal Commissioner and Anr.

Rangnath S/O Kondiba Darade, Joint Secretary, Gopi Shikshan Prasarak Bahuuddeshiya Mandal Vs State of Mah. Thr. the Secretary, Department of Education and Others

Smt. Geeta W/O Jagdish Nimje (Ku. Geeta D/O Chavryaji Dhanade) and Anr. Vs Joint Commissioner and Vice Chairman Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and Oths