Disposed

Chandrapur District Gittikhadan Majoor Sahakari Soc. Federation,Thr. Its Chairman Ramnath B.Kalsarp v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Dept. of Rural Development and Water Conservation

Bombay HC17 Jul 2013WP/1899/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, held that the decision to apportion 33% reserved work equally between two types of Labour Cooperative Societies was a policy matter. The court directed the respondents to comply with a Zilla Parishad resolution within four months without observing merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents to decide the apportionment of 33% reserved work as per Zilla Parishad Resolution No. 3(10) within four months.

Chandrapur District Gittikhadan Majoor Sahakari Soc… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

177wp1899.13

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1899 OF 2013

¶5

(Chandrapur District Gittikhadan Majoor Sahakari Societies Federation thr. its Chairman vs. State of Maharashtra thr. its Secretary & Anr.)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Court's or Judge's orders

¶8

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ. JULY 17, 2013.

¶9

Heard Shri Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Thakare, learned AGP for the respondents.

¶10

Shri Vyas, learned counsel, points out that there is already a Government Resolution which envisages distribution of about 33% of the work becoming available in the district to Labour Cooperative Societies. At Chandrapur, there are Labour Cooperative Societies and also Metal quarry Labour Cooperative Societies. The distribution, therefore, has to be further effected between these two types of societies. He invites attention to Resolution No. 3(10) passed by the Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur, on 20.09.2011. Zilla Parishad thereby has requested State Government to sub-divide 33% reserved portion equally between these two types of Labour Cooperative societies. According to Shri Vyas, learned counsel, this representation is not being decided

¶11

¶12

177wp1899.13

¶13

and hence serious prejudice is being caused to the Labour Cooperative Societies.

¶14

Shri Thakare, learned AGP is opposing the petition and relying upon the reply affidavit.

¶15

It is not necessary for this Court to resolve the controversy on merits. The decision sought is about policy matter. Zilla Parishad, which is a competent authority under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, has through resolution requested State Government to apportion 33% reserved work equally between above mentioned two types of Labour Cooperative Societies. It is open to the State Government to take appropriate decision upon said request. The petitioner is a federation of Labour Cooperative Societies at Chandrapur.

¶16

In this situation, we direct Respondents No. 1 & 2 to take appropriate decision in terms of request made and contained in Resolution No. 3(10) of Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur, dated 20.09.2011, within a period of four months from today.

¶17

With these directions and without observing anything on merits of the controversy, we dispose of this writ petition. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

JUDGE

¶19

JUDGE

¶20

*GS.

Chandrapur District Gittikhadan Majoor Sahakari Soc. Federation,Thr. Its Chairman Ramnath B.Kalsarp v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Dept. of Rural Development and Water Conservation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrapur District Gittikhadan Majoor Sahakari Soc. Federation,Thr. Its Chairman Ramnath B.Kalsarp v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Dept. of Rural Development and Water Conservation

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

Janabai D/O Vithoba (Bari) Dudhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Digvijayant S/O Wasudeo Tumdam Vs Union of India Thr. Secty. and Ors.

Vandana Uddhaorao Matankar Vs Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur Thr. Its Registrar

Sanjay S/O Dinesh Tulshan Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Mineralas and Revenue Dept. and Others

Executive Engineer (Vidc) Lowar Wardha Project Division Vs Annasaheb Mahadeorao Thakre and Others

M/S Ambuja Cements Ltd. Unit Maratha Cement Works Vs State of Maharashtra Ministry of Revenue and Forests and Others