Dismissed

State of Maharashtra v. Maharashtra Vinaanudan Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya Sansthachalak Association Thr.President,Dr. D.B. Josh

Bombay HC15 Jun 2016MCA/139/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Misc. Civil Application No.139 of 2016, the State of Maharashtra sought transfer of a writ petition pending at the Aurangabad Bench to the Principal Bench at Mumbai to be heard jointly with another petition to avoid conflicting decisions. The Bench rejected the prayer.

What did the court decide?

The application for transfer of writ petition No.1612 of 2016 from Aurangabad Bench to Principal Bench at Mumbai was rejected.

State of Maharashtra Vs Maharashtra… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

appln.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.139 OF 2016 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1612 OF 2016

¶6

The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Maharashtra Vinanudan Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya Sansthachalak Association ... Respondent

¶9

Mr.Vishal Thadani, AGP, for the Applicant/State None for Respondents

¶10

CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶11

DATE: JUNE 15, 2016

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on Board.

¶14

The prayer of the applicant in this application is that Writ Petition

¶15

No.1612 of 2016 which is filed before the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad be transferred to the Principal bench at Mumbai and the same be heard alongwith Writ Petition No.5701 of 2016, which is filed before the Principal Bench at Mumbai.

¶16

The reasons for seeking transfer of Writ Petition No.1612 of 2016 to this Bench is that the issue involved in that matter and the issue involved in Writ Petition No.5701 of 2016 is the same and there should not be

¶17

1 / 2

¶18

appln.doc

¶19

conflicting decisions in both these matters.

¶20

As far as the above grounds are concerned, the first and foremost aspect to be considered is that the applicant is the State of Maharashtra. It is easy for the applicant to appear before any Bench and be represented by any Counsel before that Bench. However, it is very difficult for a private party, who has filed a Writ Petition at the Aurangabad Bench to travel on all the dates to Mumbai and to represent themselves in the matter or to come to Mumbai and give instructions to their Counsel. Moreover, as far as the apprehension of conflicting decisions is concerned, whichever Writ Petition is decided first in point of time, that order would be pointed out in the other Writ Petition and the Court would certainly take it into consideration.

¶21

In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to grant the prayer in this application. Hence, the application is rejected.

¶22

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)

¶23

2 / 2

State of Maharashtra v. Maharashtra Vinaanudan Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya Sansthachalak Association Thr.President,Dr. D.B. Josh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra v. Maharashtra Vinaanudan Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya Sansthachalak Association Thr.President,Dr. D.B. Josh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Sadubhau Dalvi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sudhakar Rajaram Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ehsan Mohammed Tufil Mohammed Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Emile Jerome Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Ramprasad Maurya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shahjad Ahamad Tashrif Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra