Disposed

Shri. Balasaheb Baburao Jambhulkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jan 2016PIL/100/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In PIL 100 of 2009, the High Court, after hearing counsel, directed the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation regarding the grievance. The Court noted the petition had been pending since 2009 with various unverified allegations and kept the merits and jurisdiction open while disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file a comprehensive representation addressing specific grievances and issues concerning the administration of the trust.

Shri. Balasaheb Baburao Jambhulkar Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

pil 100.09..sxw

¶2

1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.100 OF 2009

¶5

Shri BalasahebBaburao Jambhulkar V/s.	...	Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra & ors.	...	Respondents

¶6

Mr. Pralhad D. Paranjape a/w. Mr. Abhisek A. Patwari advocates i/b. Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP for the State.

¶8

Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr. S.S. Kanetkar for respondents 5 to 9.

¶9

Mr. Rui Rodrigues i/b. Ms. Pranali Dixit for respondent no.4. Mr. Rajendra Anbhule for respondent no.3.

¶10

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND A.A. SAYED, JJ .

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and learned Senior Counsel Shri Jahagirdar for respondents 5 to 9.

¶13

Petition is pending since 2009. The petitioner claims to be a social worker. He wants to bring to the notice of the concerned authorities various misdeeds taking place in the administration of the trust. Various allegations are made. The allegations are denied on behalf of the trust.

¶14

2/2 pil 100.09..sxw

¶15

We have heard the Counsel appearing for University. The Counsel appearing for University submits that so far no representation has been received from the petitioner raising specific issues and grievance concerning the administration of the respondent trust. We have perused the earlier order passed by this Court. We find that it would be appropriate to dispose of the petition by issuing following directions:

¶16

In case the petitioner files a comprehensive representation in respect of the subject issue raised in this petition addressed to the appropriate University authorities then the authority concerned would look into the grievance and take appropriate steps strictly in accordance with law and by following principles of natural justice.

¶17

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations made by the petitioner. All issues are kept open. The issue concerning jurisdiction of the University is also kept open.

¶18

With aforesaid observations and direction, Petition is disposed of.

¶19

(A.A. SAYED, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶20

L.S. Panjwani, P.S.

Shri. Balasaheb Baburao Jambhulkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Balasaheb Baburao Jambhulkar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pavan Rahul Parmeshware Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dr. Ashok Madhavdas Parwani Vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Cricket Association of Bihar Vs the Board of Control for Cricket in India and Another

Friends of Wadala East Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Jafar Salar Patel Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Dinanath Tiwari Vs Director General of Police (Anti Corruption) and 13 Ors.

Shri C.R.Jayasukin Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nagrik Chetna Manch Vs the State Government of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Jeevan Mahadev Argade Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Rekha Vasant Bhamare @ Rekha Pundalik Wankhede Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Arjun Shivaji Mane Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Deepak Gupta S/O. Shri. M.P. Gupta Vs Smt. Sonu Gupta W/O. Shree Deepak Gutpa

Mrs. Ashwani Maruti Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thruogh the Secretary and Anr.

Sau. Rajiya Ajmoddin Tamboli Vs Shri. Rohan Kailas Dorage and Ors.