Allowed

Shri Sagar Vithoba Masal v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Apr 2016WP/4433/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions impugning non-speaking orders passed by the Education Officer, Sangli. The bench set aside the orders for mechanical application of mind and directed the authority to pass reasoned orders after individual hearings. A hearing date was fixed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.1.2016 set aside; authority directed to afford individual hearing and pass reasoned orders within three months.

Shri Sagar Vithoba Masal Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Sr.Nos.905 & 18

¶2

WP 3149.16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3149 OF 2016

¶5

Shri Ankush Dada Barkade ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032 & ors. ..Respondents with

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 2245 OF 2016

¶7

Shri Rajendra Ganpat Mali ..Petitioner Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032 & ors. ..Respondents with

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.4433 OF 2016

¶10

Shri Sagar Vithoba Masal ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032 & ors. ..Respondents

¶11

Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar along with Mr. Sagar Mane and Mr. M. G. Bagkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for the State.

¶12

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & RANJIT MORE, J J.

¶13

DATE : 29^th APRIL, 2016.

¶14

P. C. :

¶15

Parties through their counsel.

Shubhada S Kadam 1/2

Sr.Nos.905 & 18

WP 3149.16

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing forthwith.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned order dated 22.1.2016 passed by the Education Officer, (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Sangli, we find that the said authority has not applied its mind to the facts of case of each of the petitioner and has passed the impugned order mechanically. The order also appears to be non-speaking order.

¶21

Having regard to the aforesaid, we are inclined to dispose of these petitions by setting aside the impugned order and by directing the said authority to pass reasoned order afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the petitioners individually in each case. The authority is expected to deal with all the grounds as may be raised by the petitioners.

¶22

The petitioners to appear before the said authority on 5.5.2016. After hearing the petitioner in every case, the authority is expected to pass speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶23

6. Certified copy as per Rules.

¶24

[RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶25

[SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.]

¶26

Shubhada S Kadam 2/2

Shri Sagar Vithoba Masal v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Sagar Vithoba Masal v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sau. Sunita Laxman Kolhe Vs Late Smt. Meenal Arjun Chavan Vidya Mandir, through Principal and Ors.

Himmat Rajaram Mundhe Vs State of Maharashtra, through Revenue and Forest Ministry and Ors.

Mr. Rajendra G. Kulkarni and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Higher Technical Edu. and Employment Dept. and Ors.

Gaikwad Vijay Narayan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Rajendra Ganpat Mali Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Mrs Sushma Bharat Shrivastav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors.