Disposed

Chandrakant Sahebrao Gaikwad v. The State of Maharashtra and others

Bombay HC8 Aug 2017PIL/71/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL concerning Eve-teasing in Maharashtra, the High Court observed the petitioner did not approach authorities first. The court exercised discretion not to decide on merits immediately but granted liberty to submit representations within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to submit representations within four weeks for a final decision on the PIL.

Chandrakant Sahebrao Gaikwad Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

71.17pil

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.71 OF 2017

¶5

Chandrakant s/o Sahebrao Gaikwad,
Age: 55 years, Occ: Lecturer-Deogiri
College, Aurangabad, R/o.C-16,
“Vishal”, Jyoti Nagar, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad...PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Chief Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 & ors

¶8

..RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for petitioner;
Mr. A.B. Girase, G.P. for respondent/State

¶10

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR &
 N.W. SAMBRE, JJ.

¶11

 DATE : 8th AUGUST, 2017

¶12

ORAL ORDER :

¶13

Through this Public Interest Litigation,

¶14

the petitioner stating himself to be a public
spirited person, is seeking following reliefs.

¶15

(A)This Public Interest Litigation
may please be heard and decided finally at
the stage of admission.

¶16

71.17pil

¶17

(2)

¶18

(B)By issuing appropriate writ, or
orders or directions, the respondents No. 1
to 3, may please be directed to take
necessary and immediate steps for
preventing the instances of Eve-teasing at
all public places and more particularly in
the premises/campus of school colleges in
the State of Maharashtra.

¶19

(C)By issuing an appropriate writ or
orders or directions, the respondent Nos. 1
to 3 may please be directed to initiate
appropriate proceedings to formulate the
policy by accepting the suggestions given
by the petitioner (in para No.7 of this
P.I.L. Petition) within stipulated period
and enforce the same within stipulated
period.

¶20

(D)By issuing appropriate writ or
orders or directions, respondents No. 1 to
3 may please be directed to take necessary
and prudent action on the complaints
received from the management/administration
of the school and colleges against the
culprits/perpetrators.

¶21

(E)By issuing appropriate writ or

¶22

(3)

¶23

Orders or Directions, respondent No.4-
Commission for Womens' may please be
directed to undertake all essential steps
to prevent and curb the instances of 'Eve
teasing', more particularly in 'School' &
'College' premises.

¶24

2.We find that the petitioner is aggrieved

¶25

by the eve teasing and molestation as well as

¶26

growing instances of atrocities of women. The
relief claimed by the petitioner is to prevent the
instances in the entire State of Maharashtra. We

¶27

find that before filing this petition, the
petitioner has not approached to the appropriate
authorities by submitting report in regard to his
grievance.

¶28

3.In the circumstances, liberty to the

¶29

petitioner to submit appropriate representations
before the respondents within a period of four

¶30

weeks from today. On receipt of the said

¶31

representation, competent authority of the

¶32

respondents shall take appropriate necessary steps,

¶33

as may be permissible, in accordance with law,
expeditiously.

¶34

71.17pil (4)

¶35

4.With above liberty and observations, we
dispose of the Public Interest Litigation

¶36

accordingly.

¶37

 (N.W. SAMBRE, J.) ( SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

¶38

Tupe

Chandrakant Sahebrao Gaikwad v. The State of Maharashtra and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Sahebrao Gaikwad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Laxmanrao Dake Vs the State of Maharshtra and Others

Abasaheb Vitthal Shirsat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Onkarnath Lalchandji Karva vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr Milind Yavatkar Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Sandeep Badriprasad Agrawal and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, Department of School Education and Sports, Mumbai and Others

Shravanbal Mata Pita Seva Sangh through Its President Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Vilas Sitaram Pawar and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mr. Sapan Shrivastava and Anr. Vs Food and Drug Administration and Ors.

Shankar Narsinh Dange Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sambhaji Bhanudas Surve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashok Laxmanrao Dake Vs the State of Maharshtra and Others

Pitambar Digambar Chaudhari and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramji Dhanji Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Panjab Uttamrao Khedkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others