Dismissed

Shri. Gopal Krishna Pujari v. the Union of India, through Miistry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Mar 2015PIL/109/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL filed by an ex-employee of an educational institution, the High Court held that internal employment disputes, appointments made 25 years ago, and service condition grievances do not constitute larger public interest and are best addressed through alternate forums. The petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

PIL disposed of; deposit with High Court Legal Services Committee.

Shri. Gopal Krishna Pujari Vs the Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

3)PIL109.11

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 109 OF 2011

¶6

Gopal Krishna Pujari .. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Union of India & Ors.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Mr. S.M. Sabrad a/w Vikram N. Walawalkar, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. Lata Patne a/w Vinod Joshi, Advocate for R. No. 1-UOI. Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for R. No. 2-State.

¶11

Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni, Sr. Counsel i/b R. M. Pethe, for R. Nos. 5 to 7.

¶12

Mr. A. M. Kulkarni, Advocate for R. No. 10.

¶13

CORAM:-NARESH H. PATIL & V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ. DATED : -20/03/2015

¶14

P.C.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

2 The petitioner, an ex-employee of respondent No. 6

¶17

College has raised certain issues in respect of alleged illegal appointment of one principal in the year 1993, payment of Rs.5000/by a student, recovery of Rs.100/- from each students by the college

¶18

administration, appointment of some staff members etc. An

1/4

3)PIL109.11

affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 by Shri Srikrishna Nilkanth Kanetkar, Secretary of the Deccan Education Socety. The petitioner has filed an affidavit-in-rejoinder. Both the parties have extensively dealt with the allegations made against each other.

¶23

3 The learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record a three member committee report submitted by three member committee appointed by the University, is taken on record. We have perused th same. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the report submitted, the University has failed to take any action against responsible persons manning the administration of respondent No. 6.

¶24

4 Mr. Kumbhakoni, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 submits that in case the person having a locus desires to initiate any proceedings against functioning of the trust or society alternate forums are available which are providing efficacious reliefs. Looking to the facts of the

¶25

case, the learned counsel submitted that the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) need not be entertained at the behest of an ex-

2/4

3)PIL109.11

employee of the institution.

¶30

5 We have perused the record placed before us. We are of the prima facie view that the issues raised by an ex-employee of the institution need not be gone into in the PIL filed by the petitioner. So far as the issue concerning the appointment of a principal prior to 25 years back and issue concerning service conditions of some of the employees could not be a subject matter of PIL. We do not find a larger public interest involved in the issues raised by the petitioner herein. If at all the grievance has substance then there are other alternate forums where a person having locus could raise these issues. Any how some report submitted by by three members committee, is placed on record. It is for the University or any other agency to look into this report. We do not express any opinion on the merits of the report submitted by three members committee. At the same time we would expect the administration of respondent No. 6 to introspect in respect of the issues raised in the report submitted by the three members committee and take remedial steps in the larger interest of the administration of the trust and society. The sole purpose of the

3/4

3)PIL109.11

educational institution shall be to maintain the high standard of eduction and to serve the students community at large.

¶35

6 With these observations, the PIL stands disposed of.

¶36

7 The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the petitioner

¶37

with the registry, shall be deposited with the High Court Legal

¶38

Services Committee.

¶39

(V. L. ACHLIYA, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶40

md.saleem

¶41

4/4

Shri. Gopal Krishna Pujari v. the Union of India, through Miistry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Gopal Krishna Pujari v. the Union of India, through Miistry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi 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

Adivasi Kalyan Va Sanvardhan Society Maharashtra, through Mr. Dilip Vitthalrao Khamkar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Prabhakar Sahebrao Nagare Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Paryavaran Mitra Bahuudeshiya Sanstha,Chandrapur ,Office at Durgapur, Ward NO.1,TQ. and Distt. Vs Union of India Thr. Secy. Ministry of Environment and Forest Paryavaran Bhavan,Cgo Complex,Lodhi Rd

Shri. Anil Pandurang Magdum Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Girijadevi Co. Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Nitin Madhavrao Thorat Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Shri. Sohail Ahmad Mushtaque Ahmad and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shreepal S/O Ramprasad Pal Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Tech. Education and Energy and 3 Others

Rajan Bhalchandra Datar Vs Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Limited and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary to the Govt. and Ors. Vs Surendra Vaman Dhawale and Ors.

M/S Aakash Lavlesh Leisure Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anjana Baban Pale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban and Rural Development Dept and Ors.

Anjana Baban Pale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban and Rural Development Dept and Ors.

Mr. Ramdas Babanrao Pavale Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Agriculture and Marketing Dept and Ors.