Dismissed

Gulshan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary and Another v. the Education Officer Zp Aurangabad and Another

Bombay HC6 Jan 2017CA/122/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) rejected civil applications seeking extension of time to file charge sheets, citing lack of bona fides due to unwillingness to execute affidavits for depositing suspension allowance as per Supreme Court directions.

What did the court decide?

Applications for extension of time were rejected; consequences of earlier judgment (para 18 dated 23.11.2016) shall follow; School Tribunal to act accordingly.

Gulshan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 111 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 11312 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 112 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 11311 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 113 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 11313 OF 2016 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 122 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 11310 OF 2016

¶3

GULSHAN SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE EDUCATION OFFICER, ZP, AURANGABAD AND ANOTHER

¶4

Advocate for Applicants : Shri Nagargoje P.H. h/f Shri Zaidi A.Z.M. AGP for Respondent 1 : S/Shri Kendre S.N. and Bhagat N.T. Advocate for Respondent 2 : Shri Deshpande A.S.

¶5

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. Dated: January 06, 2017 ...

¶6

PER COURT :-

¶7

In all these applications, the applicant is seeking extension of time for filing of the charge sheets before the Tribunal and for depositing the suspension allowance as directed by this Court in the light of paragraph No.9 of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Vidya Vikas Mandal and another Vs. Education Officer and others [2007 (3) Mah.L.J. 801].

¶8

These applications were heard in the first session today and after hearing the learned Advocates for the respective sides, this Court contemplated extending the time for permitting the applicants to file

¶9

akl/d

¶10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶11

2 - CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 111 OF 2017 & ORS

¶12

the charge sheets on/or before 10.1.2017 on the condition that the applicants should file an affidavit undertaking that 50% of the arrears of subsistence allowance would be deposited before the School Tribunal on/or before 16.1.2017 and the remainder amount would be deposited by 31.1.2017.

¶13

In the second session, after lunch, when the matters were called out, the applicant instructed the learned Advocate to say that 50% of the amounts can be deposited in the Tribunal on/or before 18.1.2017 and the remainder amount would be deposited by 31.1.2017. When it was inquired as to where are the affidavits of the applicants, learned Advocate for the applicant submits on instructions, that the applicant is merely willing to make an oral statement but would not file an affidavit in this Court. This appears to be an unusual stand.

¶14

Considering the above, it is obvious that the applicants do not desire to make a statement on an affidavit and merely want the learned Advocate to make an oral statement on their behalf. This clearly reflects on the bonafides of the applicants.

¶15

Considering the above, these civil applications are rejected. The consequences in the light of the directions of this Court in paragraph No.

¶16

akl/d

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶18

3 - CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 111 OF 2017 & ORS

¶19

18 of it's judgment dated 23.11.2016 shall follow and the School Tribunal shall accordingly act on the same.

¶20

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...

¶21

akl/d

Gulshan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary and Another v. the Education Officer Zp Aurangabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulshan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary and Another v. the Education Officer Zp Aurangabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Mah. Vs Manohar Tulshiram Sonar

Jalgaon Municipal Council Jalgaon. Vs Surendra Namdeo Wani

Kinetic Engineering Ltd. Vs Narayan Venkatesh Bura

Gulshan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary and Another Vs the Education Officer Zp Aurangabad and Another

M/S Ashwini Trading Company Prop Sushiladevi Rameshkumar Bagaria Vs Panjabrao Gulabrao Bodkhe and Others

Gulshan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary and Another Vs the Education Officer Zp Aurangabad and Another