Dismissed

Mr. Deepak Pradhan v. the Administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Aug 2016PIL/150/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL was filed seeking a writ of quo-warranto and interlocutory injunctions against an Executive Engineer alleged to be in service post-superannuation. The Court dismissed the petition in limini on the ground that the Respondent had ordered a correction in the date of birth, resulting in retirement on July 31, 2016.

What did the court decide?

Public Interest Litigation dismissed in limini.

Mr. Deepak Pradhan Vs the Administration of Dadra and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

PILST. 15585-15

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (St.) No. 15585 OF 2015

¶5

Mr. Deepak Pradhan … Petitioner Vs. The Administration of Dadra & Nagar Haveli & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

¶7

Mr. Vasim Siddiqui i/b Kunal Bhange, for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. R. S. Apte, Sr. Counsel a/w M. S. Lagu, for Respondent No. 6.

¶9

¶10

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & Smt. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 19, 2016

¶11

PC.

¶12

The Petitioner has filed this PIL, seeking following

¶13

reliefs:

¶14

“(a) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of quo-warranto or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, directing to Respondents to show cause as to under what authority of law is the Respondent No. 6 continuing in the services of District Panchayat, Silvassa and occupying the post of Executive

¶15

1 / 3

¶16

PILST. 15585-15

¶17

Engineer-III (Irrigation Division), District Panchayat, despite the fact that the Respondent No. 6 has superannuated on 31.5.2015 after attaining the age of 60 years being born on 1.6.1955;

¶18

(b) pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Respondent No. 6 be restrained by an order of injunction of this Hon'ble Court from continuing in the services of the Respondents and occupying the post of Executive Engineer in P.W.D. Civil Division No. III (Irrigation).

¶19

(c) or in the alternate, pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the Respondent No. 6 from taking important administrative and financial decisions;

¶20

(d) ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (b) or (c) above be granted;

¶21

(e) any other order or relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper be granted.”

¶22

The Apex Court in several judgments had held that PILs

¶23

in respect of service matters should not be entertained. The Petitioner in this PIL is seeking a writ of quo-warranto on the ground that

¶24

2 / 3

¶25

PILST. 15585-15

¶26

Respondent No. 6 has superannuated on 31.5.2015 after attaining age of 60 years. The learned senior counsel Mr. Ram Apte, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 6 has invited our attention to an order dated 29.7.2016 passed by the Chief Engineer, PWD, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa, in which it is stated that Respondent No. 6 has already retired from the Government Services with effect from 31.7.2016 as per the corrected date of birth, which was corrected in the year 1982. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain this PIL. Public Interest Litigation is dismissed in limini .

¶27

Sd/Sd/[Smt. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶28

Vinayak Halemath

¶29

3 / 3

Mr. Deepak Pradhan v. the Administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Deepak Pradhan v. the Administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli 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

Gajanan Nilkanthrao Kuleriya Vs the Collector, Yavatnal and Others

Sunil S/O Gajanan Maiskar Vs Union of India through Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Dept. and 4 Others

Jaikrushna S/O. Shriram Fendarkar Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Higher and Technical Education Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai and Oth

Sh. Rajiv S/O Prakash Kakkad Vs Union of India Ministry of Environment and Forest through Its Director and Others

Smita Ramesh Gaikwad Vs Afzal Supariwala and 3 Ors.

Mr. Asad Ashraf Patel Vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Lawrence Chettiar Vs Government of Maharashtra,(through Govt. Pleader)

Disha Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Nilesh Ramchandra Dahanukar Vs State of Maharashtra through Housing Department and 13 Ors.

Sachin Manohar Bandkar Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Other

Indian Overses Bank Vs Mr. Abhay Raghunath Bhatwadekar and Ors.

Shri. Mallappa Chanappa Chougale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Adv. Amit Kisanrao Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Raju Ramdas Mankar Organizing Member of Vidharba Khandesh Matang Seva Singh Vs the Secretary, Covernment of Maharashtra and Anr.