Disposed

Shri Vijay Shridhar Parab v. Shri Arjun Ladu Parab and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Nov 2017WP/12968/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court adjourned the writ petition regarding the petitioner's termination as Police Patil, holding that an alternate remedy of appeal to the State Government under Rule 12 of the 1968 Order existed. The petitioner was directed to file the appeal within four weeks, after which the writ petition would stand disposed, with no interim relief granted. The court recorded that parties agreed not to ra

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. The petition is disposed of on the basis that an appeal to the State Government is the appropriate remedy.

Shri Vijay Shridhar Parab Vs Shri Arjun Ladu Parab and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

33-WPST-6695-16.doc

¶2

SKC

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO. 6695 OF 2016

Vijay Shridhar Parab

..Petitioner

versus

Arjun Ladu Parab & Ors.

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Mr. Milind Parab i/b. Milind Parab & Associates for Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Redekar for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms K. R. Kulkarni for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶11

CORAM: M.S. SONAK, J. DATE : 21 NOVEMBER 2017

¶12

P. C. :

¶13

1] Heard Mr. Milind Parab for the petitioner, Mr. Redekar for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Ms Kulkarni – AGP for respondent nos. 3 and 4.

¶14

2] The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 6^th February 2016 made by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, dismissing the Petitioner's Appeal against termination of his appointment as Police Patil under the provisions of the Maharashtra Gram Police Act, 1967. The learned counsel for the Respondents point out that in terms of Rule 12 of Maharashtra Gram Police (Appointment, Allowances and Service Conditions) Order 1968, a further Appeal is provided to the State Government against the decision of the Additional Commissioner.

¶15

3] Upon perusal of the 1968 Order, it does appear that as against the Order of the Additional Commissioner, a further Appeal is provided to the State Government.

1 of 2

33-WPST-6695-16.doc

SKC

4] Accordingly, there is no necessity to entertain the present petition, since, the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy available in the matter.

¶20

5] The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Appeal to the State Government would be instituted within a period of four weeks from today. If such Appeal is indeed instituted within a period of four weeks from today, the Appellate Authority to decide and dispose of such Appeal on its merits without adverting to the issue of limitation. In fact, learned counsel for the Respondents agree that they will not raise the issue of limitation in case, Appeal is actually instituted within four weeks from today.

¶21

6] The Appellate Authority is requested to dispose of the Appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six months from the date of its institution.

¶22

7] It is made clear that there shall be no interim relief in this matter. However, if in the meanwhile, any other appointment is made to the post of Police Patil, that will be subject to the result of the Petitioner's Appeal. In any appointment letter issued to the new incumbent, it should be clarified that the appointment will be subject to the result of the Petitioner's Appeal.

¶23

8] The Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

9] All concerned to act on basis of authenticated copy of this order.

¶25

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶26

2 of 2

Shri Vijay Shridhar Parab v. Shri Arjun Ladu Parab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Vijay Shridhar Parab v. Shri Arjun Ladu Parab and Ors.

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

M/S Geecy Developers Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Others

Drishti Adventure Sports Private Limited and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Shri Manik Namdeo Aware and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Public Works Dept. and Ors.

Rajesh Vasant Javlekar and Anr. Vs Rock Inas Ghosal and Ors.

Amol Shashikant Ahirrao Vs Chabillal Namdev Sonawane

Bhimrao Yashwant Misal Vs Rukhminibai Sadashiv Bhosale and Ors.