Petitioner approached the Court fearing suspension. The Court held mere apprehension is insufficient for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 as there was no cause of action and rejected the petition.
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.
1
WP4791-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.4791/2016
(Sandeep Rameshwar Rindhe .vs. State of Maharashtra and another)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders
Mr. D.T. Patil, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. D.P. Thakre, Additional G.P. For Respondent No.1.
CORAM : B.R. Gavai & V.M. Deshpande, JJ. DATED : September 14, 2016.
The petitioner has approached this Court on the apprehension that he may be suspended from his services.
We find that merely on the basis of the apprehension, this Court cannot entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. We find that there is no cause of action to file the present writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, rejected on this short ground.
JUDGE
JUDGE
halwai
2
WP4791-16.odt
Certificate
I certify that this order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed order.
Uploaded by : R.G. Halwai.
Uploaded on: 15.9.2016
1 issue framed by the court
Whether apprehension of suspension from services suffices to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sandeep Rameshwar Rindhe
State of Maharashtra
B.R. Gavai
V.M. Deshpande
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
