Dismissed

Mr. Jaywant Baburao Shinde and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Aug 2018WP/5458/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay rejected a writ petition seeking similar compensation granted in a related case. The Court held it not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 as preliminary surveys found petitioners neither eligible nor ineligible. The petition was disposed of with directions.

What did the court decide?

No compensation granted; petition rejected but disposed of with directions preserving right to claim eligibility based on documents later.

Mr. Jaywant Baburao Shinde and Ors. Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(14)-WP-5458-16.doc .

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.5458 OF 2016

¶4

Mr. Jaywant Baburao Shinde and others ..Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents

¶5

Mr. B. S. Nayak, Advocate for the Petitioners. Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. S. W. Pradhan, Advocate for the Respondent No.5.

¶6

CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & M. S. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 20^th AUGUST, 2018

¶7

P.C.

¶8

1] The Petitioners submit that their claim is similar to the

¶9

one, which is granted as per Consent Terms dated 8^th October 2015 in Writ Petition No.9786 of 2015.

¶10

2] It is the contention of the Petitioners that though the Petitioners therein were held to be ineligible, they were granted certain compensation till the issue of their eligibility reached finality. It is submitted that on the similar lines, the Petitioners are also entitled to the similar compensation.

¶11

3] Learned counsel for the Respondent No.5 categorically

¶12

BGP. 1 o f 2

¶13

(14)-WP-5458-16.doc .

¶14

states that in the present case, in the survey conducted, the present Petitioners are neither found to be eligible nor ineligible. It is therefore submitted that, the case of the present Petitioners is not on the similar lines with those in Writ Petition No.9786 of 2015.

¶15

4] We are therefore not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is therefore rejected.

¶16

5] Needless to state that in the event the Petitioners on the

¶17

basis of the documents in their possession are in a position to base their claim with regard to their eligibility, rejection of the present Petition would not come in their way in asserting their rights. The Petition is therefore disposed of with aforesaid directions.

¶18

Balaji Govindrao Panchal

¶19

Digitally signed by Balaji Govindrao Panchal Date: 2018.08.23 14:50:36 +0530

¶20

[M. S. KARNIK, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

¶21

BGP. 2 o f 2

Mr. Jaywant Baburao Shinde and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Jaywant Baburao Shinde and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Dahybhai Paper and Boards Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 3 Ors.

Changez Jamal Multani Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretaty Ministry of Social Justice and 12 Ors.

Ganesh Laxman Irale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nasir Palace Tenants Association Vs Mumbai Building Repair and Construction Board and 9 Ors.

Vikrant Karnik Vs Shri. Devendra Phadanvis, the Hon'Ble Chief Minister, State of Mah. and Ors.

Mr. Nabi Ahmed Ahmedullah Vs the State of Maharashtra