The High Court dismissed a PIL seeking a writ of Quo Warranto and Mandamus challenging the appointment of a person as Dean of J.J. Hospital. The bench held that the grievance pertains to service matters which are not entertained through PILs. PIL dismissed.
PIL dismissed on the ground that the grievance concerns service matters.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/3
PIL/26/2016
BDPPS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.26 OF 2016
Sachin Manohar Bandkar
….. Petitioner.
V/s
State of Maharashtra & Others ….. Respondents.
Ms. Pradnya Dagare i/b Ms. Sushmita Lawane for the Petitioner. Ms. Geeta Shastri, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State. Mr. Shekhar Jagtap for Respondent No.3.
CORAM: V. M. KANADE &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ. DATE: 18th August, 2016
P.C.:-
“ a. that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Quo Warranto or a Writ in the nature of Quo Warranto or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction commanding Respondent No.1 and 2 to furnish proof as to under what authority Respondent No.3 holds the office of Dean of J.J. Hospital even after completion of three year from the date of appointment and, in case the proof given by Respondent No.1 & No.2 is not sufficient and/or not found to be legal, valid and proper, be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or
2/3
PIL/26/2016
any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction commanding Respondent No.1 & No.2 to forthwith transfer Respondent No.3 from the post of Dean of J.J. Hospital;
b. that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction commanding Respondents No.1 and 2, their respective officers, servants, agents and any person claiming by, through and/or under them to forthwith appoint some fit and proper person to the office of Dean of J.J. Hospital in accordance with the regulations laid down in the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 and the Government Resolution in place and stead of Respondent No.3
c. that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction commanding Respondent No.1 & No.2 to forthwith refrain Respondent No.3 from holding the office and performing the functions as a Dean of J.J. Hospital;
d. that pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an order and injunction restraining Respondent No.3 from holding a post of Dean of J.J. Hospital;
e. that pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an order and injunction directing Respondents No.1 and 2, their respective officers, servants, agents and any person claiming by, through and/or under them to appoint a fit and proper person as the temporary Dean of J.J. Hospital;
3/3
PIL/26/2016
f. for interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses d and e above;
g. for costs;
h. for such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper considering the nature and circumstances of the present case.”
(MRS SWAPNA JOSHI, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this court should entertain a Public Interest Litigation regarding the appointment of a medical officer as the Dean of J.J. Hospital.
Whether the grievance regarding the continuation of Respondent No.3 as Dean of J.J. Hospital falls under the category of service matters.
Sachin Manohar Bandkar
State of Maharashtra
Others
V. M. Kanade
Mrs. Swapna Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
