Disposed

Mahebub Noormohammad Rangrej v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC17 Jan 2018WP/6054/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged a sports certificate as ineligible because the conducting association was de-recognised. The Court referred the Government Resolution of 19.01.2017 directing verification of sports certificates and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Referred the Government Resolution dated 19.01.2017 and directed the respondents to verify the sports certificate; petition disposed of with no costs.

Mahebub Noormohammad Rangrej Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 wp 6054.17

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6054 OF 2017

¶4

Mahebub Noormohammad Rangrej .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

Shri Mukul S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. Vaishali Patil – Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5.

¶9

Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 served.

¶10

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & A. M. DHAVALE, JJ. DATE : 17th January, 2018

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

The petitioner impugns letter dated 20^th May 2015, holding

¶13

the petitioner's sports certificate as ineligible on the ground that

¶14

the Association who have conducted the Baseball Tournament from 17^th to 20^th November, 2012 was de-recognised by the Indian Olympic Association on 11.2.2011.

¶15

We have heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and

¶16

the learned A.G.P. for respondents.

¶17

2 wp 6054.17

¶18

3. The Government Resolution dated 19^th January 2017, is

¶19

referred. The said Resolution states as under-

¶20

“v½ bafM;u vkWfyfEid vlksfl,'kuus fnukad 11 Qsczqokjh] 2011 iklwu ekU;rk dk<ysY;k vf/kdr jk"Vªh; la?kVukauh o v'kk vf/kdr jk"Vªh; la?kVukuh layXurk fnysY;k jkT; la?kVukauh] vk;ksftr dsysY;k] fnukad 31 fMlsacj 2013 Ik;ZarP;k jk"Vªh; @jkT; Li/ksZe/;s lgHkkx ?ksmu izkfo.; izkIr dj.kk&;k [ksGkMwaph 5 VDds+ [ksGkMw vkj{k.kkraxZr fofo/k foHkkxkekQZr lapkyuky;kl iMrkG.kh dj.;kdfjrk izkIr gks.kkjh] dzhMk izek.ki=s iMrkG.kh djrkuk] lacaf/kr [ksGkP;k jk"Vªh; la?kVusl bafM;u vkWfyfEid vlksfl,'kuph ekU;rk vkgs] vls x`fgr /k:u iMrkG.kh d:u |koh-”

¶21

In the light of above, the respondents are required to verify the sports certificate issued to the petitioner presuming that the event conducted by the Association on 17^th to 20^th November, 2012 was valid. Of course, the respondents will verify the genuineness of the certificate and all other aspects of the matter. The same shall be verified in accordance with Government

¶22

Resolution dated 19^th January, 2017 (Exhibit – I) .

¶23

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶24

[A. M. DHAVALE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶25

marathe/Jan.18

Mahebub Noormohammad Rangrej v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahebub Noormohammad Rangrej v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Malkhansing Mangalsing Sable Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gayabai Kishan Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Yeshwant Digamber Dhale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prakash Bhawarlal Mehata through Special Power of Attorney Holder S R Shinde Vs the National Highway Authority of India the Project Director and Others

Syed Sakhawat Syed Saidu Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Madhav Raghunath Nilawad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others