Disposed

Dr. Mrs.Kavita Neeraj Agarwal v. 1. State Ofmaharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Mar 2014WP/3624/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court permitted the petitioner to make a written representation regarding a demand notice for bond default. The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's representation and the order for recovery was stayed for two weeks pending the decision.

What did the court decide?

Permitting petitioner to make a written representation within four weeks; decision against petitioner to remain unimplemented for two weeks thereafter.

Dr. Mrs.Kavita Neeraj Agarwal Vs 1. State… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

skc

¶2

32-WP-3624-12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3624 OF 2012

¶5

Dr. Mrs. Kavita Neeraj Agarwal

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶9

Ms S. A. Chimalkar I/b. Mr. S. B. Prabhavalkar for Petitioner. Mr. G. Hariharan with M. S. Bhardwaj I/b. P. Kapoor for Respondent No. 4. Ms M. S. Bane - “B” Panel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

¶10

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND M. S. SONAK, JJ.

¶11

DATE: March 04, 2014

¶12

P.C . :-

¶13

1] Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally.

¶14

2] The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 27.01.2012 whereby the Government Dental College & Hospital, Mumbai directed the Office of the Collector, Jhansi, to recover Rs.5,00,000/- from her stating it to be “the bond default amount”.

¶15

3] The notice itself shows that inspite of the order dated 20.10.2010 the Petitioner though appointed as Dental Surgeon, she did not report. The reminder was also sent to join the duty but she again failed to respond to it and therefore for this reason they have issued this demand notice to recover the said amount.

¶16

4] The main case of the Petitioner is that she never signed

1/2

skc

32-WP-3624-12

and/or accepted the posting. There was no communication or bond signed by her at any point of time. Therefore, she is also denying the liability / penalty.

¶21

5] There are various questions of facts which she has raised in the petition. Those grounds therefore require reconsideration in every aspect. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to permit the Petitioner to make representation in writing within four weeks from the receipt of copy of the order. The Respondents to consider the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that once the decision is taken against the Petitioner, the same should not be implemented for two weeks thereafter. However, we are keeping all points open for the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner as well as their own action.

¶22

6] The Petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty. Rule disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶23

(M. S. SONAK, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶24

Chandka

¶25

2/2

Dr. Mrs.Kavita Neeraj Agarwal v. 1. State Ofmaharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Mrs.Kavita Neeraj Agarwal v. 1. State Ofmaharashtra and Ors.

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

Eknath Shankar Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Santosh Prakash Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Rasika Shirish Ransing Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Shri. Tatyasaheb Baburao Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. (Sow) Snehala Prafullachandra Tawde Vs Shri. Shivajimaratha Society and Ors.

Shri. Tatyasaheb Baburao Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.