Disposed

Shri. Vaijanath Marotrao Kalse v. the State Information Commissioner, Brihan Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Apr 2018WP/13461/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court accepted the Petitioner's restriction to a specific prayer clause. It directed the Vice Chancellor of the University of Mumbai to decide the Petitioner's representation regarding admission or grievance within eight weeks of the order, as none of Respondents 2 to 4 appeared.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Vice Chancellor of University of Mumbai to decide the Petitioner's representation within eight weeks.

Shri. Vaijanath Marotrao Kalse Vs the State… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2018)

Mhi

WP-13461-17.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 13461 OF 2017

¶5

Shri Vaijanath Marotrao Kalse Petitioner Versus

¶6

The State Information Commissioner Brihan Mumbai & Ors.

¶7

Respondents

¶8

Mr.D.J.Dalal, for the Petitioner. Mrs.R.M.Shinde, AGP, for the State.

¶9

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV,JJ. DATE :17^th April, 2018.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, on

¶12

instructions from his client, makes a statement that he is restricting

¶13

this petition to the relief claimed in prayer clause (C) only. Statement is accepted.

¶14

Prayer clause (C) reads as follows :-

¶15

“(C) That alternatively this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to consider the grievance/complaint of the Petitioner dated 25^th March 2017 and decide the same within a period of three months or within such period as this Honourable Court may deem fit.”

Mhi

WP-13461-17.doc

None appears for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, despite

¶20

private service.

¶21

Learned AGP for respondent No.1 submits that appropriate orders may be passed.

¶22

In the light of above, we deem it convenient to dispose of the petition by directing respondent No.2 - the Vice Chancellor to decide the petitioner's representation dated 25.3.2017 (a copy of which is annexed at Exhibit “P” at page 78) initially sent to the Chief Justice, Bombay High Court, Mumbai and thereafter the same was forwarded by the Assistant Registrar (P.G. Cell) to the Vice Chancellor, University of Mumbai under a communication dated 19.6.2017 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a

¶23

period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.

¶24

The petitioner will remain present before the Vice Chancellor, University of Mumbai, Mumbai on 2.5.2018 along with a copy of the representation as well as a copy of this order.

Mhi

WP-13461-17.doc

All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this

¶29

order.

¶30

The Legal Aid Services Committee is directed to pay the professional fees to the learned counsel for the petitioner as per rules.

¶31

[SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.]

¶32

[RANJIT MORE,J.]

Shri. Vaijanath Marotrao Kalse v. the State Information Commissioner, Brihan Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Vaijanath Marotrao Kalse v. the State Information Commissioner, Brihan Mumbai and Ors.

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

Samir Narain Bhojwani Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Others

Mr. Javed Akhtar Mohd. Hussain Siddiqui and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Ld. Govt. Pleader and 8 Ors.

Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Grampanchayat Kumbhavalan through Sarpanch Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Shankar Raghumal Rohida Vs the Deputy Superintendent, Land Records, Haveli and Ors.

Airports Authority of India Vs M/S. Reliance Electronics and Anr.