Dismissed

Bal-Bharati Public Trust and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Feb 2014WP/977/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought reimbursement of a denied salary grant and withdrawal of a recovery letter from the State of Maharashtra and MCGM. The court held that the issues involved disputed questions of fact which could not be conveniently adjudicated in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed by reference to a related pending decision, with no order as

What the court decided

AI extract

Bal-Bharati Public Trust and Anr. Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp 977.2000

¶2

dss

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.977 OF 2000

¶5

Bal-Bharati Public Trust & Anr. .. Petitioners

¶6

Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents *** Mr.Piyush Shah,for the Petitioners. Mr. Vinod Mahadik for the Respondents. *** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, AND M. S. SONAK, JJ. RESERVED ON NOVEMBER 26, 2013. PRONOUNCED ON: FEBRUARY 10,2014.

¶7

P.C.

¶8

1] The Petitioner No.1, i.e., Bal-Bharati Public Trust, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 has established and administers Bal-Bharati Primary School, which is recognized by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), i.e., Respondent No.3 and eligible to receive grants in terms of the Grant-in-Aid Code as applicable to the approved private primary schools in Greater Bombay.

¶9

1 / 4

¶10

wp 977.2000

¶11

2] By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶12

India, the Petitioners seek following reliefs:

¶13

(a) an appropriate writ directing the Respondents to reimburse the Petitioners an amount of Rs.18,58,761/-

¶14

as salary grant for the year 1994-95 alongwith interest

¶15

at the rate of 18% per annum;

¶16

(b) for an appropriate writ to withdraw letter dated 7.6.1999 which indicates recovery of an amount of Rs.44980/- from out of the salary grant payable to the Petitioners:

¶17

3] The issue of reimbursement of grant, as raised in the present

¶18

petition is similar to the issue raised in Writ Petition No.222 of 1997. Accordingly, the present petition was heard alongwith Writ Petition No.222 of 1997. The said Writ Petition No.222 of 1997 came to be dismissed as it involved disputed questions of fact, which could not be conveniently gone into by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The same is the position with the issues raised in the present petition.

¶19

2 / 4

¶20

wp 977.2000

¶21

4] In this petition, however, there is an additional relief seeking directions to withdraw letter dated 7.6.1999 showing recovery of Rs.44980/- as against the Petitioners. A perusal of letter dated 7.6.1999 (Exh.L to the paper book) would indicate that the same letter is addressed by the Petitioners to Respondent No.4. As such there arise no question of directing the Respondents to withdraw the same.

¶22

5] Assuming that the Petitioners seek relief as against letter dated 22.4.1999 addressed by the Respondent No.4 to the Petitioners, then the objection based upon involvement of disputed questions of fact will equally apply. This is because it is the case of the Petitioners continuance of service of Mrs.Urmila R. Mishra a special teacher from July 1997 to October 1998 was legal and proper. The Respondents, however, contend that the same was not, as there was a fall in the strength of students to below 1000. In any case mere withdrawal of letter dated 22.4.1999 will make no difference to the Petitioners main prayer, i.e., recovery of Rs.18,58761/- as salary grant for the year 1994-1995.

¶23

3 / 4

¶24

wp 977.2000

¶25

6] The issues raised in the present petition are accordingly substantially covered by the judgment and order in Writ Petition No.222 of 1997. In the circumstances, present petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

[M. S. SONAK, J.]

¶27

Dinesh

¶28

4 / 4

Bal-Bharati Public Trust and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bal-Bharati Public Trust and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Hotel Golden Crown Vs the M.B.R and R Board and 4 Ors.

Iqbal Y.Bhati Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Ismail Suleman Mulla, Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Mrs. Sunita Jha Nee Sunaina R Sharma Vs the State of Maharshtra and 2 Ors.

M/S.Malad Kandivli Education Society and Anr. Vs B.M.C.and Ors.

Teijin Limited Vs Union of India through the Secretary Department of Industry and 2 Ors.