The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's order. The court held that the Tribunal's decision, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Yoginath D. Bagde, was cogent and sound, permitting no interference.
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.
wp1147.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1147/2016
The State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary, Public Health Department, Bombay and others ..vs.. Dr. Arun Ramchandra Thosar.
Mr. Ambarish Joshi, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. M. V. Mohokar, Advocate for respondent.
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 18, 2016
The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 03.03.2015 thereby allowing the Original Application filed by the respondent setting aside the orders challenged before the learned tribunal.
The learned tribunal has given cogent and sound reasons. Not only that, the learned tribunal has relied on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Yoginath D. Bagde.vs.State of Maharashtra & Anr.; 1999 SCC (L&S) 1385, while allowing the Original Application. It cannot be said that the learned tribunal has taken an impossible view of the matter. On the contrary, the view taken by the tribunal is on the basis of the judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Yoginath D. Bagde (supra).
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
kahale
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal order dismissing the respondent's appeal should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Yoginath D. Bagde.vs.State of Maharashtra & Anr.Referred¶10
Yoginath D. Bagde.vs.State of Maharashtra & Anr.; 1999 SCC (L&S) 1385 · Who else cites this
The State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary, Public Health Department, Bombay
Dr. Arun Ramchandra Thosar
B. R. Gavai
V. M. Deshpande
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
