Disposed

Bombay Lawyers Association v. Union of India and Another

Bombay HC18 Mar 2016PIL/53/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In PIL regarding the declaration of 26th November as Constitution Day, the Court directed the State Government of Maharashtra to treat the petition as a representation and decide appropriately based on the Central Government's notification by 30th April 2016.

What did the court decide?

Directed the State Government to consider the claim as a representation and take a decision by 30th April 2016; permitted filing of representations regarding undertakings.

Bombay Lawyers Association Vs Union of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

pil-53.15

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.53 OF 2015

¶6

Bombay Lawyers' Association … Petitioner Vs. Union of India and Anr. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Ahmed Abdi a/w Mr. Satyaprakash Sharma i/by Abdi & Co. for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mrs. N.V. Masurkar for the Respondent No.1 – UOI.

¶9

Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, Government Pleader for the Respondent No.2State.

¶10

CORAM : A.S. OKA & P.D. NAIK, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 18^th MARCH, 2016

¶12

P.C.

¶13

1 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has tendered across the Bar a notification dated 19th November, 2015 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment of the Government of India which declares that the Government of India has decided to celebrate 26th November of every year as 'CONSTITUTION DAY' to promote the constitutional values amongst the citizens. The contention of the Petitioner is that as far as prayer against the first Respondent – Union of India is worked out but the State Government will have to take appropriate decision in terms of the decision taken by the

¶14

1 of 2

¶15

2 pil-53.15

¶16

Government of India on 19th November, 2015. Another contention

¶17

which is raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that all the Authorities which are 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India should follow what the Government of India has done.

¶18

2 A copy of the notification dated 19th November, 2015 has been supplied to the learned Government Pleader. We direct the State Government to consider this Writ Petition as a representation of the Petitioner and take appropriate decision after taking into consideration the notification dated 19th November, 2015 issued by the Government of India which is taken on record and marked 'X-1' for identification. As regards the prayer against several undertakings, we permit the Petitioner to file appropriate representations.

¶19

3 With the above directions issued to the Government of Maharashtra, we dispose of the Petition. Appropriate decision shall be taken by the Government of Maharashtra in the light of the notification dated 19th November, 2015 on or before 30th April, 2016. 4 Though the Petition is disposed of, the same shall be listed under the caption of 'Directions' on 4th May, 2016 for reporting compliance.

¶20

(P.D. NAIK, J ) (A.S. OKA, J )

¶21

2 of 2

Bombay Lawyers Association v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bombay Lawyers Association v. Union of India and Another

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

Sau. Mangala W/O Shrikrishna Patil, President, Municipal Council, Malkapur and Anothers Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and 2 Othe

Shri C.R. Jaya Sukin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shri Appasaheb Babaji Patil and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Shri Appasaheb Babaji Patil and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Mr. Vikram Vishnu Garasia Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary, and 7 Ors.

Mr. Ramnagina Yadav and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Others

Shri. Pravin Ganpatrao Kadam Vs Shri. Prakash Haribhau Londhe and Ors.

Bombay Lawyers Association Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Sicom Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator of Shree Marathewada Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Crystal Builders and Developers Vs Dr. Mrs Shaileja Shridhar Paradkar and 4 Ors.

Sicom Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator of Shree Marathewada Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Jashwant B. Mehta and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Mahashtra and 3 Ors.

1. Narsimha Enterprises and Anr. Vs Medtronic Inc. and Ors.

Bombay Lawyer'S Association Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.