Dismissed

Shri. Prashant Jaywant Doshi and Anr. v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jul 2013PIL/108/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition challenging the revocation of a municipal employee's suspension. The court held that the suspension automatically stood revoked as it was not ratified within six months and declined to entertain the matter as a public interest petition.

What did the court decide?

No order was passed as the petition was declined to be entertained and was dismissed.

Shri. Prashant Jaywant Doshi and Anr. Vs Pune… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

PIL108-12.7

1/2

PNP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.108 OF 2013

¶7

Prashant Jaywant Doshi and another

¶8

..Petitioners.

¶9

versus

¶10

Pune Municipal Corporation and others

¶11

..Respondents.

¶12

Mr. Anil V. Anturkar with Mr. Amol Gatha i/b Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh for the Petitioners.

¶13

Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.S. Khadapkar for Respondents 1 and 2.

¶14

Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni for Respondent No.3.

¶15

Mr. A.B. Vagyani, AGP for Respondents 5 and 6.

¶16

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, AND S.C.GUPTE, JJ.

¶17

12 July 2013.

¶18

P.C. :

¶19

The Petition which purports to have been filed in the public interest challenges a decision of the Municipal Commissioner of the Pune Municipal Corporation to revoke the suspension of the Third Respondent. The Third Respondent was suspended on 5 March 2007 in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 62 of the Municipal Service Rules. Proviso (b) to Section 56(1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 permits the Municipal Commissioner to issue an order of suspension subject to the condition that the suspension shall be reported forthwith by the Commissioner to the Municipal Corporation and shall come to an end if it is not communicated within a period of four months from the date of such suspension. A Full Bench of this Court has held in Ambarish Rangshahi Patnigere v. State of Maharashtra¹ as follows :

¶20

We reiterate that the powers under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 56 of the said Act of 1949 can be exercised by the Commissioner pending a disciplinary enquiry or when a disciplinary enquiry is proposed to be held against a Municipal Officer or servant. If power of suspension is exercised by the Commissioner under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 56 of the said Act of 1949 pending a disciplinary inquiry or in contemplation of the disciplinary inquiry, the order of the suspension shall stand revoked if it is not ratified by the General Body within a period of six months.”

¶21

1 2012(1) Bom.C.R. 505.

PIL108-12.7

2/2

PNP

In the present case, it is not in dispute that the suspension was not ratified by the Municipal Corporation within a period of six months and that as a consequence of law the suspension would stand revoked. Having regard to the principle of law as enunciated in the judgment of the Full Bench, we find no reason to entertain the Petition. In addition, we have taken due note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto² where it has been held that except for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto, a public interest petition is not maintainable in service matters. The grievance of the Third Respondent is that the petition is, as a matter of fact, not a bonafide petition filed in the public interest, but has been motivated at the behest of another employee who had taken charge of the post upon the suspension of the Third Respondent. We need not for the purposes of this order, enquire into that question, particularly since the affidavit in reply was made available to Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner only during the course of the hearing and since we are satisfied, that no case has been made out for the exercise of the jurisdiction in a public interest petition.

¶26

Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Court may direct the Municipal Commissioner to consider as to whether the Third Respondent should be placed on suspension by a fresh order particularly having regard to the fact that a disciplinary enquiry is pending and that a criminal case is pending. Since we have declined to entertain the Petition as a public interest petition, we are not inclined to issue any such direction to the Municipal Commissioner who would be, at any case, at liberty to exercise the powers which are vested in him in accordance with law. The Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶27

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

2 (2010) 9 SCC 655.

Shri. Prashant Jaywant Doshi and Anr. v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Prashant Jaywant Doshi and Anr. v. Pune Municipal Corporation 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Rajendra Eknath Dhande and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Arun Digambar Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Education Dept and Anr.

Shri. Rajendra Eknath Dhande and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Arun Digambar Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Education Dept and Anr.

Baban Shankar Khandagale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sameeroddin Ajimoddin Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramesh Sadashiv Kadam Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Pradipkumar S/O Popatlal Vakharia Vs Akola Municipal Corporation Thr. Its Municipal Commissioner, Akola and Another

Shri. Rajendra Eknath Dhande and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Arun Digambar Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Education Dept and Anr.

Nilesh Ramesh Mhatre Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary and Ors.

Akhil Maharashtra Girjarohakh Mahasangh, through Secretary, Shri. Rajan Bagwe Vs Anil Jairam Mahajan and Ors.

Anil Jairam Mahajan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Mary John Gomes and Ors. Vs Mrs. Ranjan Sukhtankar and Ors.