Dismissed

Mr. Pravin Murari Uttarkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Oct 2014PIL/156/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by an advocate against the State of Maharashtra. The Court held that PILs are not maintainable in service matters, citing settled Supreme Court precedents, and disposed of the petition without examining the merits of the transfer controversy.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed on the ground that PIL is not maintainable in service matters.

Mr. Pravin Murari Uttarkar Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.156 OF 2014

¶3

Mr. Pravin Murari Uttarkar ..Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra and Another ..Respondents

¶6

Mr. Sumit Kuthori and Mr. Harshad Sathe and Saurabh Batula,for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. V. B. Thadani, AGP,for Respondent No.1-State.

¶8

CORAM :- MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.

¶9

DATE :- OCTOBER 27, 2014.

¶10

P. C.:

¶11

In this Petition purported to be the Public Interest Litigation, the Petitioner the practicing advocate at Solapur has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶12

“a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or writ of direction or any other appropriate

¶13

Aswale 1/3

¶14

pil 156.14.sxw

¶15

writ and may be pleased to direct the Respondent no.1 State Government to strictly follow the rules and provisions relating to the transfer of the Government servants and further may be pleased to issue certain additional direction or guidelines in respect of the same as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit,

¶16

b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ of direction or any other appropriate writ and may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 23.06.2014 passed by the Respondent No.1(The State of Maharashtra) after verifying the validity and legality of the order dated 23.06.2014.”

¶17

2 It is obvious that, against Respondent No.1 (the State of Maharashtra), Public Interest Litigation has been filed on the basis of the allegation that order dated 23^rd June, 2014 of transferring Respondent No.2 from the post of the Commissioner for Solapur Municipal Corporation was illegal and actuated by political considerations. As per the settled legal position, Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable in service matters (vide Supreme Court decisions in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. Vs. Jitendra

¶18

Aswale 2/3

¶19

pil 156.14.sxw

¶20

Kumar Mishra & Ors. AIR 1999 S. C. 114 , Ashok Kumar Pandey

¶21

Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. AIR 2004 S.C. 280, Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 2005 S. C. 540 ) .

¶22

3 In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, we are not inclined to entertain this Public Interest Litigation. On this ground alone, the Public Interest Litigation is dismissed, without going into the merits of the specific individual case sought to be highlighted in

¶23

this case.

¶24

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶25

(B. P. COLABAWALLA , J.)

¶26

Aswale 3/3

Mr. Pravin Murari Uttarkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Pravin Murari Uttarkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Kiran Anandrao Pawar and Anr. Vs Chief General Manager M/S. Irb Kolhapur Integrated Rd. Development Com. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Ketan K. Tirodkar Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.

Mr. Kiran Anandrao Pawar and Anr. Vs Chief General Manager M/S. Irb Kolhapur Integrated Rd. Development Com. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Subhash Popatrao Wani and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Balasaheb Sitaram Auti Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Vikrant Chandrahas Tawde Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

The St. Lawrence High School and 10 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Maharashtra Veej Grahak Sanghatana and 4 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Shakeel Noorani Vs Sanjay Dutt and Dilanshin S. Dutt

Shakeel Noorani Vs Sanjay Dutt.

The Punjab and Maharashtra Co-Op Bank Ltd. Vs M/S New Age Computers and 2 Ors.

Mr. Pravin Murari Uttarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Adv. Manoj Laxman Shirsat Vs Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and 6 Ors.

Adv. Manoj Laxman Shirsat Vs Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and 2 Ors.