An application filed by a journalist, claiming interest in a writ petition challenging the transfer of another journalist, was dismissed as the applicant was deemed not to be a necessary or intervenor party in the service matter.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9060 OF 2013
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2819 OF 20132
Ashok s/o. Laxman Bhalerao
.. Petitioner.
Versus.
The State of Maharashtra.. Respondents.
Mrs. G.N. Chincholikar, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Ajay Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.3.
Mrs. V.A. Shinde, AGP for respondent No.1.
ORDER :-
1]This is an application by a journalist,
who claims that on his complaint and PIL, the
respondent no.3 (writ petitioner) was transferred.
2]This being a service matter, there cannot
be interest of private individual. In this
background, we are not satisfied that the
applicant is a necessary party or intervenor in
the writ petition No. 2819 of 2013.
3]We, therefore, dismiss the application.
grt/-.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the complaint filed by the journalist constituted an interested party in the writ petition.
Whether the application by the applicant was maintainable.
Ashok s/o. Laxman Bhalerao
Unknown
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court