Disposed

Mr Pralhad Chendiram Shelke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC23 Jun 2017RA/203/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge High Court review application regarding a Writ Petition was disposed of. The applicant sought only clarification on a previous observation directing them to approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The court clarified that the apprehension of the counsel was misplaced and disposed of the review application by its own order.

What did the court decide?

The Review Application was disposed of by relying on previous observations clarifying that the arrangement for approach to the Administrative Tribunal was not misplaced.

Mr Pralhad Chendiram Shelke Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

ra203.16

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.203 OF 2016
IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4881 OF 2016

¶7

Mr. Pralhad s/o Chendiram Shelke,
Age-48 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Police Colony, Sudhakar Nagar,
Beed-By-Pass, Aurangabad.

¶8

...APPLICANT

¶9

 VERSUS

¶10

The State of Maharashtra,
Through Chief Secretary for
State of Maharashtra,
Madam Kama Road,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
and others.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

...

¶13

 Mr.Ulhas S. Sawji Advocate for Applicant.
 Mr.P.G. Borade, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.
 1 to 5.

¶14

...

¶15

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND

¶16

 SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

¶17

 DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2017

¶18

ORDER :

¶19

1.We have heard the learned counsel

¶20

appearing for the Review Applicant. Though as many

¶21

ra203.16

¶22

¶23

as 7 grounds are taken in the Review Application,

¶24

during the course of the hearing of the Review
Application, learned counsel appearing for the
Applicant has confined his arguments to Ground
No.6 only. He submits that this Court has made
observations in Para-5 of the order under review
that, it is for the Petitioner to seek appropriate
remedy before the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal. He further submits that though by taking
aid of those observations the Review Applicant can
approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,
nevertheless the Writ Petition has been rejected.

¶25

It is submitted that since Writ Petition has been
rejected, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
may not entertain the Review Application.
Therefore, he submits that this Court may issue
necessary clarification.

¶26

2.In Para-5 of the order under review, we

¶27

have observed that, in case the Petitioner is of

¶28

opinion that some factual errors have been creeped
in the impugned Judgment, it is for the Petitioner

¶29

ra203.16

¶30

¶31

to seek appropriate remedy before the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal. In in our opinion, the
apprehension of the counsel appearing for the
Review Applicant is misplaced in view of the
observations made by us in Para-5 of the order
under review.

¶32

3.With the above observations, the Review

¶33

Application stands disposed of.

¶34

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]
asb/JUN17

Mr Pralhad Chendiram Shelke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Pralhad Chendiram Shelke 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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dipak Lahu Vyadande and Others

Bhanudas Tukaram Kharat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs S Prabhakar

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs S Prabhakar

Kiran Chhaganlal Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kumar Shivajirao Shirshikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others