Disposed

Ram Baburao Haral v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC16 Dec 2014WP/253/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged night-time working restrictions on a canteen under the Bombay Police Act. Court directed petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the Collector and Superintendent of Police to determine if permissions were required, allowing interim orders to continue until decided.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted two weeks to move a detailed representation to Collector and Superintendent of Police.

Ram Baburao Haral Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP 253.14

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.253/2014

¶6

RAM BABURAO HARAL

¶7

...PETITIONER...

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS.

¶10

...RESPONDENTS...

¶11

 .....

¶12

Smt. Zainab M. Surti, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri G.R. Ingole, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Shri D.S. Bagul, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶13

 .....

¶14

CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
 A.M. BADAR, JJ.
DATE: 16.12.2014

¶15

ORDER :

¶16

1]Heard Smt. Zainab M. Surti, Advocate for Petitioner;

¶17

Shri G.R. Ingole, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Shri
D.S. Bagul, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
2]Respondent no.4 is not opposing the cause of
petitioner.

¶18

3]Learned counsel for petitioner states that

¶19

restrictions being enforced against petitioner in

¶20

relation to working hours of canteen are not applicable
in view of provisions of the Bombay Shops and

¶21

WP 253.14 - 2 -

¶22

Establishment Act, 1948 as also the Bombay Police Act,
1951. Our attention is drawn to provisions of Section 19
of 1948 Act read with Schedule II Entry 13.

¶23

4]Advocate Bagul submits that Police authorities have
also attempted to invoke provisions of Section 33(W) of
Bombay Police Act in relation to establishment of Bus
Stand where canteen is located. It is pointed out that
in night hours, few MSRTC employees on duty are always
there.

¶24

5]Learned counsel for petitioner states that in view
of interim orders granted by this Court on 2.5.2014, the
canteen is working even during night hours in accordance
with law and necessary employees are available. She
submits that invocation of provisions of Section 33(W)
is, therefore, unsustainable.

¶25

6]Learned AGP has stated that petitioner or respondent
no.4 has not sought necessary permission from Collector
or Police authorities.

¶26

7]Provisions of law are clear. In this situation, we

¶27

grant petitioner time of two weeks to move a detailed
representation pointing out said position to respondent
no.2 – Collector and respondent no.3 – Superintendent of

¶28

WP 253.14

¶29

Police. Said authorities shall, after receipt of such
representation, take necessary decision upon it within
next two months. If necessary, they shall extend
opportunity of hearing to petitioner.

¶30

8]Interim orders granted by this Court shall continue
till representation submitted by petitioner is decided by

¶31

said respondents. If the decision on representation is
adverse to petitioner, the same shall not be given effect
to for a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶32

9]With these directions, we dispose of present
petition with no order as to costs.

¶33

ndk/ c16121444.doc

Ram Baburao Haral v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Baburao Haral v. the State of Maharashtra and 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

Uday Manohar Gandhewar Vs Municipal Council, Kinwat Thr Chief Officer and Ors.

Pradnya Mahendra Khillare and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nago Pundalik Ganar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bharatsing Gulabsingh Lakhad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ilahai Ranglal Futankar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nath Forge Private Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others