Disposed

Narayan Arjun Lahane and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC1 Jul 2016PIL/43/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of multiple PILs and writ petitions concerning proposals to open new secondary schools, directing the State Government to take a decision expeditiously within six weeks pursuant to law and state policy.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the State Government to take appropriate decision on proposals for opening new secondary schools within six weeks.

Narayan Arjun Lahane and Others Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

pil11014.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.110 OF 2014

¶3

Dagadu Sardar Barde Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Maharashtra & others Respondents

¶6

Mr.A.S.Bayas, advocate with Mr.A.B.Kale, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 2.

¶7

WITH

¶8

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.111 OF 2014

¶9

Ramesh Dhansingh Karghe Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.A.S.Bayas, advocate with Mr.A.B.Kale, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 2.

¶10

WITH PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.112 OF 2014 Nanda Samadhan Salve Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & others Respondents

¶11

Mr.A.S.Bayas, advocate with Mr.A.B.Kale, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.M.C.Swamy, advocate for Respondents No.3 & 4.

¶12

pil11014.odt

¶13

WITH

¶14

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.43 OF 2015

¶15

Narayan Arjun Lahane & others

¶16

Petitioners

¶17

Versus

¶18

State of Maharashtra & others

¶19

Respondents

¶20

Mr.A.S.Bayas, advocate with Mr.A.B.Kale, advocate for the petitioner.

¶21

Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 2.

¶22

WITH

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO.9039 OF 2015

¶24

National Education Society, Sillod Petitioner

¶25

Versus

¶26

State of Maharashtra & others Respondents

¶27

Mr.A.S.Bayas, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 2.

¶28

WITH

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO.9040 OF 2015

¶30

National Education Society, Sillod Petitioner

¶31

Versus

¶32

State of Maharashtra & others Respondents

¶33

Mr.A.S.Bayas, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.Y.Mahajan, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 2.

¶34

WITH

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO.9041 OF 2015

¶36

National Education Society, Sillod Petitioner

¶37

{3} pil11014.odt

¶38

Versus

¶39

State of Maharashtra & others

¶40

Respondents

¶41

Mr.A.S.Bayas, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.Y.Mahajan, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 2.

¶42

WITH

¶43

WRIT PETITION NO.9042 OF 2015

¶44

National Education Society, Sillod

¶45

Petitioner

¶46

Versus

¶47

State of Maharashtra & others

¶48

Respondents

¶49

Mr.A.S.Bayas, advocate advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.Y.Mahajan, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 2.

¶50

CORAM : R.M.BORDE &

¶51

K.L.WADANE, JJ. DATE : 01st July, 2016

¶52

PER COURT:

¶53

It is recorded in the affidavit-in-reply presented on behalf of the State, that the State Government, is taking every step to see that the proposals are finalised at the earliest but due to heavy workload and looking to number of proposals that have received requires time up to 30.05.2016 to take decision on the proposals of opening new Secondary Schools in the State of Maharashtra. The affidavit was presented on 01.10.2015.

¶54

Learned Counsel appearing for petitioners state that the State has not yet taken any decision.

¶55

pil11014.odt

¶56

In this view of the matter, all these petitions stand disposed of with a direction to the State Government to take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with provisions of law and in consonance with policy prescribed by the State Government, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from today.

¶57

K.L.WADANE JUDGE adb/pil11014

¶58

R.M.BORDE JUDGE

Narayan Arjun Lahane and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Arjun Lahane and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Rahul S/O Haridas Sahare Vs State of Mah., through Its Secretary, Dept. of Employment Guarantee Scheme 13 Others

Vivek S/O Dilip Awchat Vs Union of India through Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Delhi and Others

Kishor Ramkrishna Palandurkar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Secretary, Cooperation and Marketing Dept., Mumbai and Others

Rajnikant S/O Daluramji Borele Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Dept. of Home Mumbai and Ors.

Pradipkumar S/O Popatlal Vakharia Vs State of Maha. through Urban Development Dept. through Secretary Mumbai and 4 Others

Noor Mohammed Khatri Vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 11 Ors.

Shri. Balaram Shid and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pandurang Khandu Bhangare and Ors. Vs Sujata Farma Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Arjundas Navalrai Rizwani Thr Gpa Harish Thakurdas Rizwani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vilas Bajirao Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anant Chunilal Kate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jitendra Kantilal Jain Vs the State of Maharshtra and Others

Babasaheb Thakaji Khaladkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Trimurti Pawan Pratishthan, Ahmednagar Vs State of Maharashtra and Others