The petitioner challenged the delay in granting a medical fitness certificate, alleging violation of a 2012 Government Resolution mandating same-day issuance. The Court found the petitioner had already been examined and granted the certificate, finding no violation. Rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
PIL14-15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
P.I.L. No. 14/2015
(Vijay Kisanlal Agrawal .vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. )
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders
Mr. H. Dhumale, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Mehroz Pathan, AGP for Respondents 1 to 17.
CORAM : B.R. Gavai &
Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, JJ. DATED : March 04, 2015.
The petitioner is aggrieved only by the fact that when the petitioner went for medical examination, he has been given date 27.05.2015. It is the contention of the petitioner that the same is in violation of the Government Resolution dated 6.10.2012.
The Government Resolution dated 6.10.2012 provides that the certificate would be granted on the same day of examination. It is not as if the petitioner has been examined and not granted the certificate on the same day.
In that view of the matter, we do not find that the case is made out for interference. Rejected.
JUDGE
JUDGE
halwai
1 issue framed by the court
Whether granting a medical fitness certificate on 27.05.2015 violates the Government Resolution dated 6.10.2012 which mandates same-day issuance.
Vijay Kisanlal Agrawal
The State of Maharashtra
B.R. Gavai
Mridula Bhatkar
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
