Dismissed

Kavita W/O Sharad Nakave v. Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Pulgaon and 2 Others

Bombay HC18 Sept 2014WP/3568/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, legal heir of a compulsorily retired sweeper, challenged the appointment of an allegedly forged applicant who secured a sweeper post over a decade prior. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding the matter involves forgery questions suitable only for civil trial and noting inordinate laches.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Kavita W/O Sharad Nakave Vs Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Pulgaon and 2 Others — Bombay HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

wp3568-14

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITON No. 3568 OF 2014 Kavita w/o Sharad Nakave

¶4

vrs.

¶5

Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Pulgaon, Dist. Wardha and 2 others.

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

¶10

Ms. Sneha Dhote, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Prachi Choudhari h/f Shri A. Sambre, counsel for R-1.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND P.R. BORA, JJ. DATE : 18th SEPTEMBER , 2014 .

¶12

Heard.

¶13

By this petition, the petitioner seeks cancellation of appointment of the respondent no.4 on the post of Sweeper and a direction to the respondent no. 1 to appoint the petitioner in place of respondent no.2, the petitioner being the legal heir of Shri Jagdish Parihar.

¶14

Shri Jagdish Parihar was working as a Sweeper with the Municipal Council, Pulgaon. Jagdish Parihar was declared unfit for work and therefore was compulsorily retired from service on 30.6.2003. According to the petitioner, who is the married daughter of Jagdish Parihar, the respondent no.2 forged the signature of Jagdish Parihar on an application for seeking employment for the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 was employed in pursuance of the said application and is working as a Sweeper with the respondent no. 1 Municipal Council for past more than 10 years. The present petition is filed by the petitioner on 25.2.2014, seeking the aforesaid relief.

¶15

wp3568-14

¶16

¶17

It will not be proper for this court to decide the issues involved in this case in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner claims that the petitioner is the legal heir of Jagdish Parihar and the respondent no.2 does not have any concern with him. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.2 has forged the signature of Jagdish Parihar on an application when Jagdish Parihar was in an intoxicated condition. The respondent no. 2 is working as a Sweeper on the application allegedly made by Jagdish Parihar more than 10 years earlier. The question whether the respondent no.2 had forged the signature of Jagdish Parihar or not, cannot be decided in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. It is also not possible for this court to entertain this writ petition as the respondent no. 2 was appointed 10 years earlier and the petitioner has filed the writ petition in February, 2014. The petition suffers from laches. There is no cogent explanation for the inordinate delay of 10 years in approaching this court. Even otherwise, the issues involved in this case cannot be decided in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

¶18

In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶19

JUDGE JUDGE

¶20

Hirekhan

Kavita W/O Sharad Nakave v. Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Pulgaon and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavita W/O Sharad Nakave v. Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Pulgaon and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Sarangdhar Namdeo Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Mumbai and 3 Others

Moreshwar S/O Sitaramji Raut Vs the Hon'Ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, and 5 Ors.

Karnadharsingh @Jaisingh S/O Vitthalsingh Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary General Administration Department Mumbai and Others

Swa.Vithoba Dewaji Bawane Guruji Smriti Vrisharopan,Sawardhan Shik.Sanstha,Thr.Pre.Meghnath v.Bawan Vs Secretary, Ministry of Education, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai

Sau Rekha W/O Deepak Chimote Vs Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Ministry of Education, Bombay and Others

Sanjay S/O Baburao Koli Vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Division, Nashik through Its Chairman and Anothers