Allowed

Shri. Namdeo Tukaram Shelke v. the Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons (M.S.), Pune

Bombay HC16 Dec 2014WP/3403/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court set aside an impugned order of the Tribunal that dismissed the petitioner's original application for failure to consider a relevant common judgment. The original application was restored for reconsideration by the Tribunal. The petition was disposed of by making the rule absolute.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Tribunal dated 6 September 2013 was set aside. The original application was restored for reconsideration. The rule was made absolute.

Shri. Namdeo Tukaram Shelke Vs the Additional… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

bsb 1

¶2

WP3403.14.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3403 OF 2014

¶5

Namdeo Tukaram Shelke … Petitioner v/s

¶6

The Additional Director General of Police & Inspector General of Prisons (M.S.), Pune-411 001. … Respondent

¶7

Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar along with Mr.Sagar A. Mane for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr.C.P. Yadav, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.

¶9

CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA & N.M. JAMDAR, JJ. DATED : 16 DECEMBER 2014

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶12

We are inclined to dispose of the present petition in view of the specific averments made in paragraph 9 of the petition which remained uncontroverted as thereby it is averred and contended as under :-

¶13

“9. The petitioner states that therefore heavy reliance was placed on his behalf at the hearing of his Original Application before the Tribunal, on the aforesaid

¶14

bsb 2

¶15

WP3403.14.doc

¶16

common judgment and order dated 14.8.2013. It was urged that the case of the petitioner is identical to the said original applicants and the petitioner was a similarly situated employee. Hence it was urged that applying the principle/ratio of the said order of the Tribunal to the facts of the case of the petitioner, the order of transfer in respect of petitioner is also required to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner states that however it is surprising that the Hon'ble Tribunal while dismissing the petitioner's original application by the impugned order dated 6.9.2013, has not even referred to the said common order of the Tribunal dated 14.8.2013 and the Tribunal has not dealt with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by relying upon the said order of the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Tribunal has committed error of law in not considering and applying the said common order to the facts of the case of the petitioner. Thus the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is illegal, perverse and hence the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.”

¶17

Therefore, in the interest of justice, as the case is made out, we are inclined to dispose of the present petition by setting aside impugned order dated 6 September 2013. The original application is restored for reconsideration.

¶18

The learned Tribunal to decide the original application in view of above, as early as possible.

¶19

The interim orders granted by the Tribunal and also by this Court dated 9 October 2013 to continue till the decision of the original application.

¶20

bsb 3 WP3403.14.doc

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶22

( N.M. JAMDAR, J.) ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

Shri. Namdeo Tukaram Shelke v. the Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons (M.S.), Pune

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Namdeo Tukaram Shelke v. the Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons (M.S.), Pune

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

Balwant Dattu Bhosle Vs the Commissioner, Co-Operative Societies and Ors.

Shri. Kisan Gopal Matre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Subhash Gopalrao Matre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Amol Balasaheb Bhondave Vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, through Chief Executive Officer and Anr.

Smt. Shyamal Ashok Hardikar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Dept and Anr.

Smt. Madhavi Mohan Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Dept and Anr.