Disposed

Adivasi Gramin Vikas Sanstha, Dhanapur, through Its President, Murlidhar Keshav Alam v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. Mantralaya and Others

Bombay HC11 Jul 2016WP/2802/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Nagpur admitted an amendment to add the Secretary, Education Department, as a respondent. It disposed of the writ petition on admissions stating the challenge is imaginary and that no resolution permitting a tribal Military School had been passed, while preserving the petitioner's right to approach again if steps are initiated.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to add respondent nos.7; writ petition disposed with liberty to approach again if steps initiated.

Adivasi Gramin Vikas Sanstha, Dhanapur, through Its… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1/3

¶2

1107wp2802.15

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2802 OF 2015

¶5

(Adivasi Gramin Vikas Sanstha vs. State of Maharashtra and others)

¶6

__________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Shri V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for petitioner. Shri A.S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 3 to 7.

¶8

Mrs. M.R. Chandurkar, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶9

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

¶10

DATED : JULY 11, 2016

¶11

On 23/6/2016 we have passed the following order :

¶12

“The learned Additional Government Pleader points out that as per earlier judgment, the concerned Department was the beneficiary. Learned Advocate Shri Wankhede for the petitioner, only to avoid loss of time, seeks leave to add the Secretary, Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai32 as party respondent no.7. Leave granted.

¶13

The necessary amendment be carried out forthwith.

¶14

The learned Additional Government Pleader waives notice for the newly added respondent. The newly added respondent to point out what action has been taken after the judgment of this Court dated 19/8/2005 in Writ Petition No.4830 of

1107wp2802.15

2/3

List for further consideration on 11/7/2016.”

¶19

We find that before that, on 14/10/2015 affidavit has been filed by Assistant Project Officer mentioning that challenge in writ petition is imaginary and no resolution like Resolution dated 10/4/2015 granting permission for starting Military School in Chandrapur District was passed by the State Government.

¶20

Adv. Chandurkar appearing for respondent no.2 states that there is no prayer against respondent no.2 and he has been unnecessarily joined.

¶21

Grievance of petitioner is that it has moved long back for grant of permission to start such School. That application is being kept pending and if any such School is permitted to come up, that application would be defeated.

¶22

We find that in paragraph 4 of the reply, State Government has pointed out that in a writ petition filed by petitioner about said application, i.e. Writ Petition No.2327/2006, it has already filed its reply and that writ petition is pending for final adjudication before this Court.

¶23

In this situation, we accept the statement made on affidavit that State Government has not published any Resolution like Resolution dated

¶24

1107wp2802.15

¶25

3/3

¶26

10/4/2015 about commencement of a tribal Military School in Chandrapur District.

¶27

This statement sufficiently takes care of the apprehension expressed by the petitioner. However, without observing anything on merits and if any such steps are initiated, with liberty to petitioner to approach again in the matter, we dispose of the present writ petition. No costs.

¶28

JUDGE JUDGE

¶29

khj

Adivasi Gramin Vikas Sanstha, Dhanapur, through Its President, Murlidhar Keshav Alam v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. Mantralaya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adivasi Gramin Vikas Sanstha, Dhanapur, through Its President, Murlidhar Keshav Alam v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. Mantralaya and Others

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

Magaswargiya Sarvodaya Shikshan and Prashikshan Sanstha, Wardha through Its Secretary and Anothers Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Department of Urban Development, Mumbai and 2 Others

Vaidehi E-Link, Thr. Its Prop. Shri. Hemraj Umraoji Punekar and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Ambazari, Nagpur and Another

Devananda Galomal Nichwani Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Jaripatka, Nagpur and Another

Anil S/O Shyamsunder Agre Vs Shri. Sharadprasad Yadav, Commissioner of Police, Nagpur and Another

Sagar Sanghraj Gajbhiye Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary to Rural Development Department and 2 Others

Ku. Manisha D/O Narayan Dodake and Others Vs Smt. Sampada Mehta (Chief Executive Officer. Z.P. Gadchiroli) and Another