Allowed

Shri. Dhananjay Dadasaheb Jagtap v. Kranti Jyoti Savitribai Phule Sanstha through Its Officer Shri Dilip B. Nimbarkar

Bombay HC10 Mar 2016CAW/2287/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought leave to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to appeal before the School Tribunal. The court granted the request to withdraw with liberty, dismissed the petition, and disposed of a related Civil Application without adjudicating on merits.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to appeal before the School Tribunal granted.

Shri. Dhananjay Dadasaheb Jagtap Vs Kranti Jyoti… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Dixit

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.5077 OF 2015

¶4

Kranti Jyoti Savitribai Phule Sanstha, Pune .… Petitioner V/s. The Administrative Officer (Education), Shikshan Mandal Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, Pimpri, Pune & Anr. …. Respondents

¶5

ALONG WITH

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2287 OF 2015 IN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.5077 OF 2015

¶8

Dhananjay Dadasaheb Jagtap …. Applicant In the matter between Kranti Jyoti Savitribai Phule Sanstha, Pune .… Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Administrative Officer (Education), Shikshan Mandal Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, Pimpri, Pune & Anr. …. Respondents

¶11

Mr. S.A. Sawant for the Petitioner.

¶12

Mr. P.G. Sawant, A.G.P., for Respondent No.1.

¶13

Mr. D.R. More for Respondent No.2.

¶14

Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Sr. Advocate, i/by Ms. Kalyani Tulankar, for the Applicant in Civil Application No.2287 of 2015.

¶15

CORAM : RANJIT MORE &

¶16

DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J.

¶17

DATE : 10TH MARCH 2016.

¶18

1/2

¶19

WP-5077-15-CAW-2287-15.doc

¶20

P.C. :

¶21

Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for the Petitioner, having taken instructions from the Petitioner, seeks leave to withdraw this Petition with liberty to challenge the order impugned in this Petition before the School Tribunal. The Petition is allowed to be withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for, and stands dismissed as such.

¶22

It is made clear that, we have not gone into the merits of the matter and in the event such an Appeal is filed by the Petitioner, the same shall be decided in accordance with law. All points and contentions of the respective parties in this regard are kept open.

¶23

Needless to mention, that the Petitioner is entitled to file the Appeal along with application for condonation of delay and while considering the application for condonation of delay, the School Tribunal shall consider the fact of pendency of the Petition in this Court as well as provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

¶24

In view of the above, Civil Application No.2287 of 2015 pending in the Petition, does not survive and the same is also dismissed.

¶25

[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶26

2/2

¶27

WP-5077-15-CAW-2287-15.doc

Shri. Dhananjay Dadasaheb Jagtap v. Kranti Jyoti Savitribai Phule Sanstha through Its Officer Shri Dilip B. Nimbarkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Dhananjay Dadasaheb Jagtap v. Kranti Jyoti Savitribai Phule Sanstha through Its Officer Shri Dilip B. Nimbarkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indus Towers Limited Vs Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, Pimpri and Ors.

M/S. Kalyani Veg Hotel through Its Proprietor Shri. Raghuram Narayan Shetty Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mrs Kavita Sanjay Ghagare Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Social Justice Dept. and Ors.

Smt. Lata Nareshkumar Patel Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Sudhir Kuber Kshirsagar Vs the Chief Officer, Kurduwadi Municipal Council, Kurduwadi Solapur and Ors.

Shri. Balu Genu Sawant Vs the Government of India and Ors.