Partly allowed

Ajay Deepak Hiwrale v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Sept 2013WP/532/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a student, approached the Bombay High Court to correct an error in his school records where his date of birth was wrongly listed as 10.7.1995 instead of 10.5.1992. The court granted leave to file a fresh application.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to file a fresh application within two weeks; Education Officer directed to decide within six weeks after hearing.

Ajay Deepak Hiwrale Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

 WP 532/13

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.532/2013

¶6

Ajay Deepak Hiwrale.

¶7

...Petitioner..

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & others.

¶10

...Respondents...

¶11

 .....

¶12

Shri S.B. Talekar, Advocate for petitioner.

¶13

Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3.
Shri Ravi R. Bangar, Advocate h/f Smt.Surekha Mahajan,
Advocate for respondent no.4.

¶14

 .....

¶15

CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
 RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.

¶16

DATE: 19.09.2013

¶17

ORDER :

¶18

1] Leave to correct description of respondent no.3.

¶19

2] Petitioner, a student, states that his date of birth

¶20

correctly recorded as 10.5.1992 in Register of Deaths and

¶21

Births was also mentioned accordingly in initial school

¶22

records, however, while changing the school, an error

¶23

occurred and a wrong date i.e. 10.7.1995 came to be
mentioned in said school. With said record, petitioner
passed his 10th Std. examination.

¶24

 WP 532/13

¶25

- 2 -

¶26

3]Learned Advocate for petitioner submits that after
realizing error, efforts were made to get the date
10.5.1992 restored in school records. The Education

¶27

Officer was also approached, but he refused to even
entertain the application. Support is being taken from
some earlier orders of this Court, which are annexed with
writ petition.

¶28

4]Learned AGP appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3
submits that if appropriate application is again made,
the same shall be disposed of at the earliest in
accordance with law.

¶29

5]We, therefore, grant petitioner leave to file fresh
application within a period of two weeks from today. If
respondent no.3 - Education Officer receives such
application, the same shall be decided within further
period of six weeks, if necessary after extending
opportunity of hearing to petitioner or his guardian.
6]Writ petition is accordingly partly allowed and
disposed of. No costs.

¶30

 (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
ndk/c1991321

Ajay Deepak Hiwrale v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Deepak Hiwrale v. the State of Mah 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

Sureash Satramdas Bhateja and Others Vs Bhumesh Tarachand Sonar and Others

The Village Panchayat, Kaudgaon Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manoj Maganlal Ghodke and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kewalabai Mariba Gaikwad Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Aurangabad Zilla Majdoor Kamgar Sahakari Sansthecha Sangh Limited and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Muktabai Namdeo Salunke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others