This Division Bench dismissed writ petitions challenging Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal orders. The court held that the petitions were filed with significant delay without explanation and the respondents were still in service, leading to dismissal.
Rule discharged. Writ petitions dismissed.
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 ) wp180.07
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 180 OF 2007
The State of Maharashtra..Petitioner
Versus
Manik Yeshwanta Gaikwad..Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 181 OF 2007
The State of Maharashtra..Petitioners
Versus
Subhash Asaram Bhadwaldar..Respondent
Mr. S.R. Palnitkar, A.G.P. for the petitioner.
Mr. Sudhir Patil h/f. Mrs. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar,
Advocate for respondent Nos. WP No.180 of 2007.
Mr. Kalyan Patil h/f. Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for
respondent in WP No. 181 of 2007.
CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE &
V.K. JADHAV,JJ.
DATED :08.01.2015
P.C. :-
1.The facts of these petitions are similar and
therefore they are taken up for hearing and disposal
commonly.
2.In these petitions orders dated 28th June, 2001
& 5th September, 2001, respectively, passed by the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench is
challenged belated in 2006-07. In Writ Petition No.10506
of 2010, the Division Bench of this Court has taken a
view that due to delay of almost more than four years,
the petition should be dismissed for latches on the part
of the petitioner. Even in the present petitions there is
no mention as to why the petitions are filed after so
much of delay. Apart from this, the respondents/employees
are in service since 1986 and are still working.
3.The writ petitions are therefore dismissed. Rule
discharged.
[V.K. JADHAV,J.] [A.V. NIRGUDE,J.]
snk /2015/JAN14/wp180.07
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow belated writ petitions challenging Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal orders dated 2001.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P. No. 10506 of 2010Referred¶16
The State of Maharashtra
The State of Maharashtra
Manik Yeshwanta Gaikwad
Subhash Asaram Bhadwaldar
A.V. NIRGUDE
V.K. JADHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court