The High Court disposed of three writ petitions by application of the principles laid down in Shri Bharat Shejal v. State of Maharashtra (WP 6438/2017), ordering the Rule made absolute in favour of the petitioners.
Rule made absolute accordingly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
dgm 1 26-wp-8273-17 with 8274, 8275.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8273 OF 2017
Shri Popat Shankar Hakke vs
The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary and ors.
.... Petitioner
.... Respondents
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8274 OF 2017
Shri Mahadeo Yashwant Kolekar .... Petitioner
vs
The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary and ors.
.... Respondents
AND ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8275 OF 2017
Shri Pandurang Pundlik Pingle .... Petitioner vs The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary and ors. .... Respondents
Mr. Sagar A. Mane i/by Mr. Mandar G. Bagkar for the petitioner in WP/8273/2017.
Mr. Sagar A. Mane for the Petitioner in WP/8274/17 and WP/8275/17. Mr. C.P. Yadav, AGP for Respondent No.1/State. Mr. Ramkrushna Yedave i/by Mr. Vijay Killedar for respondent No.2 in all matters.
1/3
dgm 2 26-wp-8273-17 with 8274, 8275.sxw
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.
DATE : August 21, 2017
FINAL ORDER :
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent.
2 The learned counsel for the Petitioners make statement that in view of the decision in Writ Petition No.6438/2017- Shri Bharat Raosaheb Shejal v. The State of Maharashtra dated 13.07.2017, as their case is governed on same facts as well as on law, therefore, similar order can be passed in favour of the Petitioners.
3 The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 – Zilla Parishads, on instructions and after going through the order/judgment, concede to the position that this order/judgment covers the Petitioners' case in every aspect. The statement is made that in other matters they have already acted upon the direction so given in the case of Shri Bharat Shejal (supra). The similar order will be passed in these Petitions in favour of the Petitioners.
2/3
dgm 3 26-wp-8273-17 with 8274, 8275.sxw
4 The statement is made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.8274/17 and 8275/17 that reason for seeking transfer is the Petitioners having old age parents and the reason for seeking transfer in Writ Petition No.8273/17 is that his wife is an employee of Zilla Parishad.
5 Considering the statement so made by the learned counsel for the Respondents and the reason so given in the order/judgment in Shri Bharat Shejal (supra) , we are inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petitions on similar lines in terms of prayer (b).
6 Rule made absolute accordingly.
(BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
3/3
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shri Bharat Raosaheb Shejal v. The State of MaharashtraFollowed¶27
Writ Petition No. 6438/2017- Shri Bharat Raosaheb Shejal v. The State of Maharashtra dated 13.07.2017
Shri Popat Shankar Hakke
Shri Mahadeo Yashwant Kolekar
Shri Pandurang Pundlik Pingle
The State of Maharashtra
Anoop V. Mohta
Bharati H. Dangre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
