Disposed

Love Ramsingh Chavhan, Yavatmal v. State of Maharashtra, through Sub Division Officer, Yavatmal and Others.

Bombay HC13 Jun 2018PIL/7/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of the PIL regarding Public Prosecutor recruitment without staying the advertisement. Held that requirement of immovable property is unsustainable based on precedents, but interim relief barred pending potential third-party claims.

What did the court decide?

PIL disposed of; no grant of injunction or stay on recruitment advertisement.

Love Ramsingh Chavhan, Yavatmal Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 PIL7.18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.7 OF 2018

¶4

(LOVE RAMSING CHAVHAN...VS..STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTH.)

¶5

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

Court's or Judge's orders

¶8

¶9

CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND Z.A.HAQ, JJ.

¶10

DATED : JUNE 13, 2018.

¶11

Heard Shri N.B.Rathod, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.M.Uke, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶12

The Additional Government Pleader is seeking time to file reply since instructions are awaited. The request is being strongly opposed by the petitioner. He points out that advertisement to fill the post of Public Prosecutor is issued on 12^th January, 2018 and there are no interim orders staying it.

¶13

The learned Additional Government Pleader, without prejudice, submits that the recruitment may have been over and the concerned parties are not before this Court. According to him, the aggrieved party may have challenged the advertisement before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal or other appropriate forum.

¶14

We find that the petitioner is relying upon the judgment of this Court dated 22^nd September, 2016 in PIL No. 90 of 2015 ( Patalya Langda Mawaskar Vs. State of

¶15

2 PIL7.18

¶16

Maharashtra & oth ) and judgment in the matter of Arun Tukaram Vs. State of Maharashtra , reported at 1999(3) Mh.L.J. 594 .

¶17

In said judgment, the condition requiring applicant to possess immovable property was found unsustainable. Here, the challenge is identical. It is, therefore, concluded in favour of the petitioner by two judgments of this Court. We are, therefore, not inclined to keep the Public Interest Litigation pending.

¶18

However, as there was no interim order, if recruitment has taken place and third party interests are created, we cannot deal with those interests in writ jurisdiction. The interests so created may be dealt with by competent forum as per law.

¶19

Hence, with above declaration and liberty to the petitioner to proceed further in the matter, as per law, we dispose of the public interest litigation. No costs.

¶20

RRaut..

Love Ramsingh Chavhan, Yavatmal v. State of Maharashtra, through Sub Division Officer, Yavatmal and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Love Ramsingh Chavhan, Yavatmal v. State of Maharashtra, through Sub Division Officer, Yavatmal and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harish S/O Gangaram Agrawal Vs the Director General of Civil Aviation and 2 Ors.

Sudesh Balkrishna Mukkawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Khurshed Soli Dhondy Vs Her Royal Majesty Queen Beatrix of the Kingdom of the Neatherlands and Ors.

Mr. Ganpat Jotiba Karade Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Social Welfare Dept and Ors.

Belapur Parali Railway Pravasi Seva Sanstha through Its Secretary Ritesh Vijay Kumar Bhandari Vs the Union of India and Others

Parvez Razak Darvesh vs Dilawar Daud Gaonkhadkar and Ors.

Vidyasagar Dube Vs the Commissioner Mcgm and 6 Ors.

Dhanraj S/O Shrawan Giri and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and 2

Union of India through General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) and Another Vs Smt. Ganeshibai Alias Sunderibai, W/O Late Shri Ghasiram S/O Arjun Gond

Dilip S/O Hanumanji Kalaskar Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Mumbai through Its Vice President and Others

Dilip S/O Hanumanji Kalaskar Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Mumbai through Its Vice President and Others

Meghraj Pundlik Dongare Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Others

Jyotiram S/O Babusing Rathod Vs the Collector, Collector Office, Washim and Others

Elgar Pratishthan, through Its Secretary, Kalyan Kumar ,Chandrapur and Others Vs the Union of India, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, New Delhi