Dismissed

Kakasaheb Damodhar Kakde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC18 Jan 2017PIL/164/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This division bench disposed of a PIL challenging the constitutionality of amendments in Maharashtra Legislation Members' salaries and pension Acts. The court refused to entertain the matter, having already decided the identical issue in another PIL at the Principal Seat.

What did the court decide?

The Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of for reasons given by the Division Bench in PIL No.148 of 2016.

Kakasaheb Damodhar Kakde Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 4-PIL-164-16.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.164 OF 2016

¶4

Kakasaheb Damodhar Kakde

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra
and ors.

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

Mr.C.V.Thombre, Advocate for petitioner

¶10

Mr.A.B.Girase, G.P. for respondents

¶11

CORAM : V.M. KANADE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 18, 2017

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Heard.

¶14

2.By this Public Interest Litigation

¶15

(P.I.L.), the petitioner is seeking following
reliefs :-

¶16

“A)This Public Interest Litigation
may kindly be allowed;

¶17

B)By issuing an appropriate writ,
order or direction, the amendment to

¶18

2 4-PIL-164-16.odt

¶19

Maharashtra Act No.XXXII of 2016
published in official gazette dated
24.08.2016 by amending Section 3 of
MaharashtraLegislativeMembers'
salaries and allowance by amendment
in sub-Section 4 and amendment of
Section 6 and also amendment to the
MaharashtraLegislativeMembers'
pension Act, 1976 and amendment of
Section 3 of Act 1977 may kindly be
struck down being unconstitutional;

¶20

C)Any other suitable order may
kindly be passed in the interest of
justice.”

¶21

3.The learned Government Pleader appearing

¶22

for the respondents submits that an identical
P.I.L. was filed at the Principal Seat at Bombay
being Public Interest Litigation No.148 of 2016
wherein, the Division Bench, by order dated
23.09.2016, repelled the contentions of the
petitioner therein and dismissed the P.I.L. He
tenders across the Bar a copy of the said order.

¶23

3 4-PIL-164-16.odt

¶24

4.We have gone through the order dated

¶25

23.09.2016 passed in Public Interest Litigation
No.148 of 2016. In our view, for the reasons given
in the said order, the issue raised in the present

¶26

P.I.L. has already been decided by the Division
Bench in the said P.I.L. We are, therefore, not
inclined to entertain this P.I.L.

¶27

5.The Public Interest Litigation, therefore,
stands disposed of for the reasons given by the
Division Bench at the Principal Seat at Bombay vide
order dated 23.09.2016 passed in Public Interest

¶28

Litigation No.148 of 2016.

¶29

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [V.M. KANADE, J.]

¶30

kbp

Kakasaheb Damodhar Kakde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kakasaheb Damodhar Kakde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Suresh Bibhishan Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vishwasrao Sukhadeo Deokar Vs State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Rajeshwar Ganesh Panchal Vs the Union of India, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Vishwasrao Sukhadeo Deokar Vs State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

The Advocates Bar Association of Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal Aurangabad through Its President Vs Union Government of India through Its Chief Secretary New Delhi and Others

Mr. Ajit Kumar Maruti Sonawane and Anr. Vs Principal Secretary - Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept. and Ors.

Puneet Dhanda Vs State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary

Shri. Ashok Ramchandra Metkari and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Co-Operation, Marketing and Textiles Dept and Ors.

M/S R G Sanap Construction Company through Its Proprietor Raosaheb Govindrao Sanap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rasul Babaji Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Padmaja Gulabrao More and Another Vs the Chief Election Officer Maharashtra Election Commission Mumbai and Others

Prataprao Gangadharrao Chavan and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shankuntala Zumbar Kale Vs the Chief Officer Municipal Council Osmanabad

Sheela Kishanrao Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others