Disposed

Meera Sadanand Kamath v. the States of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Apr 2014PIL/113/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of a PIL filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appointment of the Chairperson and members of the Maharashtra State Commission for Women, as the government had already made appointments. The Court directed the intervener to file an independent proceeding regarding her objection to the Chairperson's appointment.

What did the court decide?

None granted in this petition; PIL disposed of as infructuous.

Meera Sadanand Kamath Vs the States of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

ASN

1/3

PIL-113-13.sxw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.113 OF 2013

¶6

Meera S, Kamath. ….Petitioner. vs. State of Maharashtra. ….Respondent.

¶7

Mr. Sandeep R. Jalan for the Petitioner. Mrs. Geeta Shastri, Addl.G.P. for Respondent No.1 State. Ms. Minakshi Maheshwari for Intervener.

¶8

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND M.S. SANKLECHA, J. DATE : 17 April, 2014

¶9

PC:

¶10

In this petition filed on 19 September 2013 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶11

a) To direct the Government Maharashtra to take necessary steps for appointment of Chairperson and other members of the Maharashtra State Commission for Women (Commission) under Maharashtra State Commission for Women Act 1993 (Act); and

¶12

b) To direct the respondent to take necessary steps for appointment of officers and employees for efficient performance of the Commission.

ASN

2/3

PIL-113-13.sxw

Affidavit in reply dated 5 March 2014 has been filed by Ms. Shobha S. Mhate, Under Secretary in the Department of Women and Child Development,Government of Maharashtra. In the above affidavit it is stated that by Notification dated 31 December 2013 the State Government has appointed the Chairperson and six members of the Commission for a period of three years from the date of the Notification or till further orders of the Government whichever is earlier. A copy of the Notification is placed on record at Exhibit-12 to the affidavit dated 5 March 2014. Similarly, the above affidavit points out that out of total 35 posts of officers and employees in the Commission, 24 posts have already been filled in and the said strength is sufficient for the Commission to effectively perform its duties and obligations under the Act. In view of the above, it appears that nothing further survives in this PIL.

¶17

However, Ms. Minakshi Maheshwari has sought leave to intervene in this PIL contending that she has objection to appointment of Chairperson appointed under the aforesaid notification dated 31 December 2013 and that she wants her complaint to be investigated.

¶18

Since the grievance of Ms. Minakshi Maheshwari is about the appointment of an individual to hold the office of the Chairperson of the Commission, the grievance would have to be examined separately in an independent petition and it can not be done in the present PIL.

¶19

Accordingly, this PIL is disposed of as infructuous with a

ASN

3/3

PIL-113-13.sxw

clarification that it would be open to the intervener to file an independent proceeding regarding her grievance.

¶24

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶25

(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

Meera Sadanand Kamath v. the States of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera Sadanand Kamath v. the States of Maharashtra

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

Shri. Jaising Babasaheb Yewale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Human Rights Security Council, through Controller, Shaybaz Aziz Shaikh Vs Talegaon Dabhade Nagarparishad and Ors.

Prakash Sunderdas Talreja and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur Vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shri. Suryakant Manikrao Deshmukh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Nabab Sandu Shaikh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Siddhivinayak Marg Nivasi Seva Sanstha Vs Mira-Bhayander Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Shri. Shantaram Yamaji Pujari Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Water Resources Dept and Ors.

Rohit a. Kapadia and 2 Ors. Vs the Investigating Officer, and 3 Ors.

Aditya Biju Salve Vs the Chief Election Commissioner Election Commission of India and 3 Ors.

Avimay Sohrab Hakim, Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. Vs the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Dept of Revenue and Ors.

Vinod Zaverchand Shah and Ors. Vs Mr. Sanjay Damji Shah and Mehul Jadavji Shah

Mahanagar Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Prachi Prabhakar Vaidya and 4 Others