The High Court at Aurangabad rejected a belated criminal writ petition questioning the legality of appointments made 18 years ago, holding that entertaining such petitions after a long lapse of time would constitute an abuse of the court process.
The criminal writ petition and Criminal Application No. 4982/2016 stand rejected.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 710 OF 2016
(Anand s/o Kashiram Sapkale Vs. The State of Maharashtra
and others)
Mr. N.R. Shaikh, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for the respondent/State
CORAM :S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 14th September, 2016
PER COURT:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned A.P.P., representing the State.
2.Respondent Nos. 4 to 12 are appointed way back
in the years 1994 to 1998. By this petition, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner
questions the legality of the documents submitted by
those respondents/appointees eighteen years back and
further prays for directions to respondent Nos. 2 and 3
to investigate into the matter.
3.Upon going through the memo of the writ
petition and the prayers made therein, we are not
inclined to entertain such a prayer. The criminal writ
2 criwp710-2016
petition filed belatedly cannot be entertained. In case
such petitions, filed belatedly, are entertained while
exercising the writ jurisdiction after number of years
of the appointments of the appointees, it would amount
to abuse of the Court and the process of law. In that
view of the matter, the criminal writ petition stands
rejected.
4.In view of rejection of the writ petition,
Criminal Application No. 4982/2016, for permission to
produce the additional documents, does not survive and
stands rejected.
npj/criwp710-2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal writ petition challenging the legality of appointments made 18 years ago can be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Whether such a delayed petition amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anand s/o Kashiram Sapkale
The State of Maharashtra
S.S. Shinde
Sangitrao S. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court