Dismissed

Mr. Sunil Dayal Rajani v. State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jan 2018WP/2188/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the writ petition seeking direction to initiate an inquiry against an employee for dual employment. The judgment held that the petitioner lacked locus standi to file the petition as the grievance did not concern the petitioner's service conditions. Consequently, the notice of motion was also disposed of.

What did the court decide?

None. Petition rejected on locus standi grounds.

Mr. Sunil Dayal Rajani Vs State of Maharashtra and 4… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

19-WP-2188-15.sxw

¶2

BDPSPS

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2188 OF 2015

¶5

Mr. Sunil Dayal Rajani ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents

¶6

AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.181 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION 2188 OF 2015

¶7

Ashok Balumal Dhingreja ..Applicant

¶8

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶9

Sunil Dayal Rajane ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents

¶10

Mr. Sunil Dayal Rajani – Petitioner in person.

¶11

Mr. Hemant Haryan, AGP for Respondent No.1.

¶12

Mr. Rui A. Rodrigues, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶13

CORAM: B. R. GAVAI &

¶14

B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.

¶15

DATE: 8^th JANUARY, 2018

1/2

19-WP-2188-15.sxw

P.C.:-

1] Petitioner has approached this Court, seeking direction to Respondent No.1 to initiate an inquiry against Respondent No.2.

¶20

2] Petitioner has come to this Court with a grievance that Respondent No.2 is in dual employment; one as the Head of Department of Accountancy with Respondent No.3 – R.A. Poddar College of Commerce & Economics and the other as an Officer being the Chartered Accountant Secretary Cum Finance Manager with Respondent No.5 – M/s Bhiryani Dadlani Sales Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner has no direct or indirect concern with the services of Respondent No.2. If Respondent No.2 is illegally in two employments, which is not permissible as per the relevant service conditions, it is either for the employer of Respondent No.2 to take a call on that or any other person, who is deprived of his legitimate claim on account of Respondent No.2 illegally continuing in either of the employments. We find that Petitioner does not have any locus to file the Petition as framed by the Petitioner.

¶21

3] Petition is therefore rejected solely on the ground of locus.

¶22

4] In view of disposal of the Petition, nothing survives in the Notice of Motion and the same is also disposed of.

¶23

2/2

Mr. Sunil Dayal Rajani v. State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Sunil Dayal Rajani v. State of Maharashtra and 4 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

Kunal Parmar and Ors. Vs the Hon. Administrator, Damana, Diu and Dadra Sand Nagar Haveli and Ors.

Ramniranjan a Jaiswar Vs the State of Maharashtra

J.v.Pathare Vs Director of Art, Maharashtra State and Ors.

Sunil Dinanath Dubey Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Anala Pandit Vs Director, Directorate of Technical Education and 4 Ors.

Sujit Ramchandra Tabib Vs Deputy Director, Higher Education Dept. and Ors.