Disposed

Hanmant v. Gunale and Anr. v the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Mar 2014WP/470/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, addressing a challenge to the constitutionality of a reservation Act, transferred the matter to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, holding that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate the vires of the legislation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is returned to the petitioners to present before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal as an Original Application.

Hanmant v. Gunale and Anr. Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 of 4 WP.470.2005

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITIONNO.470 OF 2005

¶4

Hanumant Gunale and others

¶5

Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Ms.Sneha Patil i/by KK Associates for Petitioners. Mr.J.D.Khairnar i/by Mr.M.M.Vaidya for Intervenor.

¶10

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND M.S.SANKLECHA, J.

¶11

DATE : 12 March 2014

¶12

PC :

¶13

The Petitioners, two in number, are Executive Engineers in Irrigation Department of the Government of Maharashtra and are presently working under Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra State Public Services [Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward Category and Other Backward Classes] Act, 2001 (Maharashtra Act No.VIII of 2004) and the Government Resolution No.BCC-2001/1887/PR. KR.640/01/16-B, dated 25 May 2004.

¶14

2 of 4 WP.470.2005

¶15

Writ Petition No.8452 of 2004 raising identical challenges as raised in the present petition came to be heard by this Court on 18 June 2013. At the hearing of the said writ petition, preliminary objection was raised by the learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Maharashtra about maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the dispute raised in this petition. It was submitted that Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 enacted by the Parliament in exercise of its powers under Article 323A of the Constitution of India is to function as the Court of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which it has been constituted including for the purposes of adjudicating upon any challenge to the vires of legislation (excepting the legislation under which the Tribunal has been constituted). After hearing the learned counsel for the parties in that writ petition, we upheld the preliminary objection and disposed of the said writ petition.

¶16

We are informed that hearing of transferred Writ Petition No.8452 of 2004 is now fixed before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 9 April 2014.

¶17

We accordingly dispose of this writ petition in terms of the following directions :

¶18

(a) This writ petition is returned to the Petitioners for presentation before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and it is directed that

¶19

3 of 4 WP.470.2005

¶20

papers of this writ petition along with original records be returned to the counsel for the writ petitioners for presenting the same before MAT within one week from today;

¶21

(b) The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal shall take up this writ petition for final hearing along with Writ Petition No.8452 of 2004 which has been transferred to the Tribunal by order dated 18 June 2013;

¶22

(c) For all purposes, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal shall treat this writ petition as transferred Original Application. Of course, the Petitioners will be at liberty to make incidental amendments to state that the Writ Petitions are presented before the Tribunal as Original Applications;

¶23

(d) In view of the fact that this petition is being transferred, no objection on account of limitation and/or delay in filing the application would be entertained by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. As a matter of abundant caution, we condone the delay, if any, in filing the petition before the Tribunal, provided the Petition is filed before the Tribunal within two weeks from today;

¶24

(e) We request the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal to take up this writ petition along with Writ Petition No.8452 of 2004 for final hearing on 9 April 2014.

¶25

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶26

4 of 4 WP.470.2005

¶27

All concerned including Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by registry.

¶28

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶29

(M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)

¶30

MST

Hanmant v. Gunale and Anr. v the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanmant v. Gunale and Anr. v the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Director of Income Tax (E) Vs Jamsetji Tata Trust

Louis Anthony Dias and 4 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and 9 Others

Commissioner of Income Tax(Central-Iv), Mumbai Vs Income Tax Settlement Commission(Itsc) Additional Bench and 42 Ors.

M/S. Mohan Travels Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hanmant v. Gunale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Mohan Travels Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.