Dismissed

Sonali Pravin Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Nov 2015WP/2222/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed writ petition praying for prosecution initiation, compensation, and suspension of respondents. Court noted disciplinary action was already taken pursuant to earlier order, precluding prosecution or suspension directions. Compensation prayer rejected.

What did the court decide?

Relief for criminal prosecution registration, compensation, and suspension of respondents denied; Writ Petition dismissed.

Sonali Pravin Chavan Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

wp-2222/15.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2222 OF 2015 Sonali Pravin Chavan. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents.

¶4

Mr. Ashish Mehta, Sarbari Cheterjee, Avani Rathod and Shivani Deshmukh for the Petitioner.

¶5

Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, learned APP for the State.

¶6

Coram : RANJIT MORE & V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ. Date : November 19, 2015 .

¶7

P. C. :

¶8

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs :

¶9

“A) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, direction or order in the nature of the mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India thereby directing Respondent No. 1 to initiate criminal prosecution and register offence against Respondent No. 7 to 9 within two weeks from the date of this Hon'ble Court's order;

¶10

B) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, direction or order in the nature of the mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India thereby directing

1 / 3

patilsr

wp-2222/15.

Respondent No. 1 to compensate the Petitioner with compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- within two weeks from the date of this Hon'ble Court's order;

¶15

C) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any writs, direction or order in the nature of the certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India thereby be pleased to direct Respondent No. 1 to order suspension of Respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 within two weeks from the date of this Hon'ble Court's order.”

¶16

Admittedly, on similar set of allegations as contained in the present writ petition, earlier the Petitioner had filed writ petition in this Court, being Writ Petition No. 1203 of 2012. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 18^th July 2013 by issuing various directions. Learned APP for the State submitted that pursuant of the order dated 18^th July 2015, disciplinary enquiry was conducted against Respondent No. 7 to 9 and action is taken against them. Photocopies of the record and proceeding of disciplinary enquiry conducted against Respondent No. 7 to 9 have been placed on record by the Petitioner herself at Exhibit-AAA and at Exhibit-BBB. In this fact situation, we are not inclined to consider prayer clauses (a) and (c).

¶17

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner heavily relied upon the unreported decision of this Court in Salma Babu

2 / 3

patilsr

wp-2222/15.

Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition 400 of 2007 decided by Division Bench on 3^rd March 2008. He also pressed into service Apex Court decision in Ramesh Kumari v. State [(2006) 2 SCC 677]. We have gone through the ratios laid down in these decisions. In the light of facts stated hereinabove and especially in view of the fact that the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court and pursuant to the directions given by this Court Respondent Nos.7 to 9 have been dealt with accordingly, decisions pressed into service by learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner will not take case of the Petitioner any further.

¶22

Relief sought in prayer clause (b) cannot be entertained in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Adequacy of the punishment granted in the disciplinary enquiry cannot be gone into writ jurisdiction. Besides, the Petitioner has not challenged those orders either in this writ petition or before any appropriate Court or authority.

¶23

In the light of above, writ petition is dismissed.

¶24

[V. L. ACHLIYA, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶25

3 / 3

¶26

patilsr

Sonali Pravin Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonali Pravin Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjaykumar Shriram Sing and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Khalil Jani Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Saidunnisa Asgarali Ansari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sou. Sampada Shrirang Biradar and Ors.

Ibrahim Babu Irani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amit Satish Kumar Alias Amit Satish Putran and Ors. Vs Brayan Anthony Fernandes and Ors.