Dismissed

Dawoo Krishna Cawade and 20 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Mar 2014WP/2661/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay, Ordinary Original Jurisdiction, dismissed Writ Petition No. 2661 of 2013 as not maintainable. The Court held that disputed questions of fact prevented the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, noting the existence of an alternate remedy. The petition for cancellation of trade union registration and other reliefs were dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dawoo Krishna Cawade and 20 Ors. Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP. 2661-13

¶2

VPH

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 2661 OF 2013

¶5

Dawoo Krishna Cawade & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents

¶7

¶8

Mr. Abhijit naik i/b Rajesh Khobragade, for the Petitioners. Mr. D. A. Nalawade, Govt. for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Prashant Chawan with Ms. S. R. Surve i/b Little & Co. for Respondent No. 2.

¶9

Mr. S. S. Pathak a/w T. R. Yadav, for Respondent No. 3.

¶10

¶11

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & A. K. MENON, JJ.

¶12

DATE : MARCH 20, 2014

¶13

PC.

¶14

Learned advocate appearing for the Petitioners submits that the matter may be kept back, since the advocate on record is busy in another Court. We decline to grant any further adjournment since the matter was specifically kept today high on board at the instance of the counsel appearing for the Petitioners.

¶15

A preliminary objection is raised by Respondent No. 2 regarding maintainability of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. In our view, there is much substance in the submissions made by the counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2.

¶16

1 / 3

¶17

WP. 2661-13

¶18

The Petitioners have filed this petition seeking following reliefs:

¶19

“(a) That, this Hon'ble Court, may issue a writ of mandamus or writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent No. 4 to accept the complaint / application for cancellation of Registration of Respondent No. 3 Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh.

¶20

(b) That, this Hon'ble Court, may issue a writ of mandamus or writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent No. 4 to cancel the recognition / registration of the Respondent No. 3 be cancelled.

¶21

(c) That pendency of the present petition and arrears of the badli worker the injunction be granted for no further construction be carried out on site situated at Shree Ram Mills, Ganpat Ram Kadam Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400 013.

¶22

(d) That the direction shall be given to the Respondent No. 3 to represent the Petitioners before the Respondent No. 2 for the Gratuity Funds and for others benefits for which petitioners are entitled.”

¶23

In our view, the reliefs which are sought by the Petitioners cannot be granted by this Court while exercising our writ

¶24

2 / 3

¶25

WP. 2661-13

¶26

jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, firstly, since there are several disputed questions of facts raised by the Petitioners in this petition; and secondly, Petitioners have an alternate remedy of approaching the appropriate forum, challenging the registration / recognition of Respondent No. 3 Union. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable. Liberty, however, is granted to the Petitioners to approach the appropriate forum. All contentions raised by the Petitioners in this petition are kept

¶27

Vinayak Halemath

¶28

3 / 3

Dawoo Krishna Cawade and 20 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dawoo Krishna Cawade and 20 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rachana Sansad'S Academy of Architecture and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Arshiya International Ltd. Vs Sicom Limited

Anil Purushottam Kangutkar and 97 Others Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Gajanan Krishana Gawde and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

H. Rehman Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr.a.v.Patankar Vs University Grants Commissione and Ors.