Dismissed

Surajsingh S/O Shivpalsingh Gaur v. State of Maharashtra, Education Department, Mumbai and 5 Others

Bombay HC2 Sept 2014WP/1438/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a direction to the school to allow his son to appear in the 9th Standard Examination despite unpaid fees. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner could not pursue identical relief via a writ petition while the matter remained pending with remedies exhausted before the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; points raised kept open. No order as to costs.

Surajsingh S/O Shivpalsingh Gaur Vs State of Maharashtra… — Consumer Protection | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1/2

¶2

wp1438.1 4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1438 OF 2014

¶5

Surajsingh Shivpalsingh Gaur

¶6

-vs-

¶7

State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

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

¶9

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶10

Mr.D.I.Jain, counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

Mrs.Rashi Deshpande, A.G.P. for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.P.S.Chavhan, counsel for the respondent No.4. Mr.A.V.Bhide, counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 6.

¶12

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & P. R. BORA, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 02.09.2014.

¶14

Heard.

¶15

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent Nos.5 and 6-School to allow the petitioner to appear at the examination.

¶16

The petitioner had not paid the fees in respect of the admission of his son Shreyas and hence, the respondentManagement had removed the son of the petitioner from the school. The petitioner challenged the removal of his son from the school by the Management in a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The Consumer Forum partly allowed the complaint filed by the petitioner and directed the respondent-Management to grant provisional admission to the son of the petitioner on the condition that the petitioner pays the entire fees as per the old rules. The petitioner offered to pay the fees to the respondentManagement as per the old rules. Since the Management had filed an appeal before the State Commission and since

¶17

2/2

¶18

wp1438.1 4

¶19

there was the stay in the said appeal, the Management did not accept the fees. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application before the State Commission seeking a direction to the Management to permit the son of the petitioner to appear at the 9^th Standard Examination. The stay application was, however, rejected. Instead of challenging the order of the State Commission rejecting the application of the petitioner for permitting the petitioner's son to appear at the examination before the National Commission in a revision. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking an identical relief.

¶20

Shri Bhide, the learned counsel for the respondent-Management, raises a preliminary objection to the tenability of the petition. It is stated that since the petitioner had elected the remedy under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and when the matter is still pending before the State Commission, the petitioner cannot seek identical reliefs by filing the writ petition, specially when the application filed by the petitioner for permission to his son to appear at the examination is being rejected by the State Commission.

¶21

In view of the doctrine of election, the petitioner has to elect one remedy. The petitioner cannot be permitted to elect two remedies in respect of the same relief at the same time. The order of the State Commission rejecting the prayer for interim relief has attained finality, as the same is not subjected to challenge.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶23

The points raised in the petition are kept open.

¶24

JUDGE JUDGE

¶25

KHUNTE

Surajsingh S/O Shivpalsingh Gaur v. State of Maharashtra, Education Department, Mumbai and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surajsingh S/O Shivpalsingh Gaur v. State of Maharashtra, Education Department, Mumbai and 5 Others

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

Rajendra Ramkrushnarao Bobde Vs Zilla Parishad, through Its Chief Executive Officer, Wardha and Others

Jitendra Venudas Bharshankar and 3 Others Vs the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Another

Vimal W/O Rameshji Dhore Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary of Revenue Department, Mumbai and 3 Others

Sau. Renukabai Ramesh Pahurkar Vs State of Maharashtra through Collector, Yavatmal and 2 Others

Chabutai D/O Konduji Jumbade Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Education, Mumbai and 5 Others

Prakash S/O Yadvrao Gujarmare Vs Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur and Another