Dismissed

Sanskar Shikshan Mandal, through Its President, Shri Sharad Atmaram Kathwate v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary and 2 Others

Bombay HC25 Sept 2014WP/3605/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Native High Court at Bombay, Nagpur Bench dismissed a writ petition filed by an Educational Society challenging a reservation order. The Court found the petitioners concealed the existence of a dismissed identical petition. It permitted the withdrawal of the petition but imposed heavy costs of Rs. 5000.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw writ petition allowed after imposition of heavy costs of Rs. 5000/-.

Sanskar Shikshan Mandal, through Its President, Shri… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

Order

2509wp3605.14

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 3605/2014.

¶6

Sanskar Shikshan Mandal, Gondia and another.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's Orders.

¶10

Court's or Judge's orders.

¶11

Shri P.N. Shende, Advocate for the petitioners. Smt. B.H. Dangre, G.P. for the respondents.

¶12

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

¶13

DATED : SEPTEMBER 25, 2014.

¶14

Heard.

¶15

By this petition, the petitioners seek a

¶16

direction to the Director of Education to forthwith take

¶17

a decision on the issue, whether the criteria of reservation shall be made applicable to the petitioner no.2 School or not. The petitioners also challenges

¶18

the order passed by the Director of Education, dated 05.11.2012, informing the petitioners that one of the

¶19

three posts of Headmaster in the petitioner no.2 School

Order

2509wp3605.14

would be reserved.

Smt. B.H. Dangre, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the petition is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs as the petitioners have concealed the fact in regard to the filing of writ petition no. 4778/2012, seeking identical relief. It is stated that in Writ Petition No. 4778/2012 the petitioners have challenged the communication issued by the Director of Education dated 05.11.2012, which is also impugned in the present petition. It is stated that the writ petition was dismissed after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, who is also incidentally the counsel in the present case. According to the learned Government Pleader, said Writ Petition No. 4778/2012 was dismissed on the ground that no cause of action arose for filing the same.

¶25

On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the petition is liable to be dismissed by imposing costs on the petitioners. This is a case of suggestio falsi suppressio veri. The petitioners

Order

2509wp3605.14

have concealed the material fact in regard to the filing of the previous Writ Petition and the dismissal thereof. It was necessary for the petitioners to have pointed out the said fact by making an averment in that regard in this writ petition. There is reason to believe that the fact in regard to the filing of the previous writ petition wad deliberately concealed, as if the said fact would have been considered by this Court, the petitioners would not have been entitled to any relief.

¶30

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. We permit the petitioners to withdraw the writ petition, but, by imposing costs of Rs. 5000/- on the petitioners, payable to the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Nagpur within a period of seven days.

¶31

Order accordingly.

¶32

JUDGE JUDGE Rgd

Sanskar Shikshan Mandal, through Its President, Shri Sharad Atmaram Kathwate v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanskar Shikshan Mandal, through Its President, Shri Sharad Atmaram Kathwate v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary 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

Mah. Public Service Commission Thr. Its Secty., Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and Ors.

Bharat S/O Dattatraya Jog Vs State Bank of India, Bharat Nagar, Nagpur and 2 Others

Salim Maniyar Yasin Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Mumbai and 6 Others

Vyankatesh Gulabrao Deshmukh Vs Additional Commissioner,Amravati Division and 2 Ors.

Smt. Nanda Wd/O Shivkumar Manchalwar Vs Shiv Vidya Shikshan Prasarak Shikshan Sanstha, through Its President, Nagpur and 3 Others

Sunil S/O Vitthalrao Kodape Vs Principal, Shri Bhaiyaji Pandharipande National Institute of Social Work, Nagpur and Another