Disposed

Baljindarsingh Harbansingh Jaggi and 44 Others v. State of Mah., through Chief Secretary, Home Dept. and 3 Others

Bombay HC25 Mar 2015WP/601/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions challenging a prohibition on authorized representatives entering RTO premises were dismissed. The Court held that the respondents satisfied their duty by assuring compliance with a prior order allowing authorized agents entry, thereby dispensing with further litigation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were disposed of without costs based on the respondents' assurance of compliance with prior interim orders.

Baljindarsingh Harbansingh Jaggi and 44 Others Vs… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

25032015wpno.443.2015 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

Writ Petition No. 443 of 2015

¶4

(Akola Shahar Truck Owners Association and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others.)

¶5

Writ Petition No. 601 of 2015 (Baljindarsingh Harbansingh Jaggi and others. vs. The State of Maharashtra and others.)

¶6

Writ Petition No. 892 of 2015

¶7

(Shri Munna Panchamlal Varma and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others)

¶8

Notes, Office Memoranda of

¶9

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders.

¶10

CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI &

¶11

S.B.SHUKRE, JJ

¶12

DATE : 25.3.2015

¶13

Heard Senior Advocate Shri C.S. Kaptan with Advocate Shri J.B. Gandhi and Advocate Shri T.D. Mandlekar, for respective petitioners and Mrs. Bharti Dangre, learned Government Pleader for respondents.

¶14

Perused the impugned communication at Annexure

¶15

25032015wpno.443.2015 2

¶16

A with Writ Petition No. 443 of 2015 and a message sent thereafter by Transport Commissioner which has been placed as Annexure 1 (page 81) with Writ Petition No. 601 of 2015. Shri Gandhi submits that said message needs to be viewed in the background of interim orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 443 of 2015 on 29.1.2015.

¶17

Senior Advocate Shri Kaptan, Advocate Shri Gandhi and Advocate Shri Mandlekar argue that the intention even to prohibit authorized representatives/ agents from entering the premises of R.T.O. is apparent from the said message.

¶18

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents in all the matters relies upon the reply affidavit. She submits that though word “agents” has been employed in the Circular or message, the intention was to prohibit unauthorized persons from entering the premises of R.T.O. to exploit the individuals who visit those offices for having license to drive vehicles and other similar purposes. She contends that unfortunately because of use of wrong word, a dispute has cropped up. She invites attention to the reply affidavit to show

¶19

25032015wpno.443.2015 3

¶20

assertion that the directions issued by this Court in earlier writ petition shall be strictly adhered to.

¶21

In reply, the respective learned counsel for the petitioners urge that this stand is by way of afterthought and a U- turn.

¶22

We do not wish to go into the merits of controversy and the statement that the effort was to prohibit unauthorized persons and stop harassment of individuals made by the responsible Officer need not be doubted at least at this stage.

¶23

In Writ Petition No. 2065 of 1987 decided on 6th June, 2002, this Court has in para no. 15 recorded thus:

¶24

“However, we make it clear and as is admitted by the respondents through their return that, if a person enters the premises of respondent nos. 1 and 2, on behalf of his master or owners of vehicles with a due authority letter from the masters or the owners of vehicles, to do specific work on their behalf and other alike work in

¶25

25032015wpno.443.2015 4

¶26

furtherance thereof, shall not be restrained from entering into the premises of respondent nos. 1 and 2 for getting the work done on behalf of their masters, whose authority letter, on demand, the said person shall produce instantly. With these observations, the petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged.”

¶27

As the respondents have stated that they never had

¶28

any intention to violate said directions and are duty bound to implement it and will be abiding by, we find that interest of the petitioners before this Court and other authorized agents/ representatives functioning in the State of Maharashtra is sufficiently protected. In view of this reply affidavit, we dispose of the writ petitions. No costs.

¶29

JUDGE JUDGE

¶30

patle

¶31

25032015wpno.443.2015 5

Baljindarsingh Harbansingh Jaggi and 44 Others v. State of Mah., through Chief Secretary, Home Dept. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baljindarsingh Harbansingh Jaggi and 44 Others v. State of Mah., through Chief Secretary, Home Dept. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakhan Satyanarayan Shriwas Vs State of Mah., through Its Secretary, Urban Dev. Dept. and Another

Virendrakumar Prabhakar Raikwar, R/O Raipura, Achalpur Shahar, Dist Amravati Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati and Another

Manik Bansilal Pachade and Others Vs Adinath Swami Digambar Jain Sansthan Also Known as Balaji Maharaj Digambar Mandir through Trustee

Shubham Bahhuddeshiya Sanstha, Waddhamna, through President Shri. Eknath Pise and Antoher Vs Deputy Director of Education Nagpur Division Nagpur and 2 Others

Jsw Ispat Steel Limited (Formerly Known as Ispat Industries Ltd) through P.S. Waghmare Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary Ministry of Industry Energy and Labour

Deepak S/O Prakash Kamble and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary School Education Department and 7 Others