Remanded

Krantiveer Vasantrao Narayanrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Nashik, through Chairman and Ors. v. University of Pune, through Registrar and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Oct 2013WP/1982/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay quashed an impugned decision of a Management Council for violation of the principles of natural justice due to non-hearing of the party and directed a fresh decision within four months, allowing parties to submit a settlement agreement if reached.

What did the court decide?

Impugned decision quashed and set aside for non-hearing; directions issued for fresh decision within four months; acceptance of agreed settlement by parties permitted before Management Council.

Krantiveer Vasantrao Narayanrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

wp-1982,1985,1986.13

¶3

pmw

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1982 OF 2013 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1985 OF 2013 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1986 OF 2013

¶6

Krantiveer Vasantrao Narayanrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha and another

¶7

… Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

University of Pune and others … Respondents

¶10

Mr. M.S. Karnik, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mrs. M.S. Bane, AGP 'B' Panel, for Respondent No.4.

¶11

Mr. Girish Kulkarni i/by Mrs. Minakshi G. Kulkarni, for Respondent No.1.

¶12

Mr. R.A. Rodrigues a/w G. Hariharan i/by Mr. H.P. Chaturvedi, for Respondent No.3.

¶13

Mr. Sagar A. Sankpal, for Respondent No.2.

¶14

CORAM : A.S.OKA & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ

¶15

DATE : 23^rd OCTOBER, 2013

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

Not on board. Taken on board.

¶18

. For the reasons recorded in the judgment and order

¶19

dated 11^th October, 2013 in Writ Petition No. 1994 of 2013 and other

¶20

connected petitions, the impugned order of the Management Council passed on the basis of the complaint of the second Respondent will

¶21

1 of 3

¶22

 2wp-1982,1985,1986.13

¶23

pmw

¶24

have to be set aside. However, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the second Respondent state that they have arrived at a workable arrangement between them and in fact the same has been signed.

¶25

If that be so, the Petitioner and the second Respondent can always place the settlement arrived at between them before the Management Council when the Management Council gives hearing to the parties concerned.

¶26

For the reasons recorded in judgment and order dated 11^th October, 2013 in Writ Petition No.1994 of 2013 and other connected petitions, we pass the following order : -

¶27

ORDER

¶28

(i) Accordingly, impugned decision of the Management

¶29

Council dated 12^th September, 2012 on the basis of the complaint of the second respondent is quashed and set aside only on the ground that the parties were not heard by the Management Council;

¶30

2 of 3

¶31

¶32

wp-1982,1985,1986.13

¶33

pmw

¶34

(ii) The Management Council shall give an opportunity of

¶35

being heard to the second respondent and shall take a fresh decision in accordance with law. The fresh decision shall be taken within a period of four months from today. All contentions on merits are kept open;

¶36

(iii) We make it clear that the impugned decision is set aside only on the ground that the necessary parties were not heard by the Management Council;

¶37

(iv) We make it clear that it will be open for the Petitioner and second Respondent to place the settlement before the Management Council at the time of hearing. The Management Council is bound to consider the same in accordance with law.

¶38

(v) The petitions are disposed of on above terms;

¶39

(vi) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order;

¶40

(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J) (A.S.OKA, J)

¶41

3 of 3

Krantiveer Vasantrao Narayanrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Nashik, through Chairman and Ors. v. University of Pune, through Registrar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krantiveer Vasantrao Narayanrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Nashik, through Chairman and Ors. v. University of Pune, through Registrar and Ors.

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

Pallavi Bharatbhushan Wankhede Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Baban Dattu Mole and Ors. Vs Shri. Karmaveer Baburao Patil and Ors.

The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-Ii, Pune Vs Indraprastha Premises Pvt. Ltd.

Pimpari Prashala Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mr. Vinayak Balkrishna Mathe Vs the Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, through Chief Executive Officer