Dismissed

Sunil Manikrao Sakhare and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC21 Feb 2018WP/998/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employees appointed as freedom fighters' nominees challenged refusal of interim protection against cancellation of their nominations. The Court rejected the petitions and declined continuation of ad-interim relief. It noted that termination required an opportunity of hearing and confined its observations to prima facie consideration.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sunil Manikrao Sakhare and Others Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp978.18+

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.978 OF 2018

¶6

1) Bhaskar s/o Eknath Dhere,
 Age-45 years, Occu:Service,
 R/o-District Hospital, Osmanabad,
 Tq. & Dist-Osmanabad,
2) Prakash s/o Ramkishan Aarsul,
 Age-47 years, Occu:Service,
 R/o-Sub-District Hospital,
 Omerga, Tq-Omerga,
 Dist-Osmanabad.
...PETITIONERS
 VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through its Secretary,
 General Administration Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
2) The District Collector,
 Beed,
3) The Additional Collector,
 Beed.
...RESPONDENTS
 ...
 Mr.S.S. Thombre Advocate for Petitioners.
 Mr.A.B. Girase, Government Pleader for
 Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
 ...
WITH

¶7

wp978.18+

¶8

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.979 OF 2018

¶10

Rahul s/o Dnyanoba Gaikwad,
Age-34 years, Occu:Service as
Sub-Inspector, State Excise,
Flying Squad, Jalna

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

 VERSUS

¶13

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through its Secretary,
 General Administration Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

¶14

2) The District Collector,
 Beed,

¶15

3) The Additional Collector,
 Beed,

¶16

4) The Commissioner,
 State Excise, Maharashtra State,
 Mumbai.
...RESPONDENTS

¶17

 ...
 Mr.S.S. Thombre Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mr.S.B. Yawalkar, Additional Government
 Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
 ...
 WITH

¶18

 WRIT PETITION NO.988 OF 2018

¶19

Balasaheb s/o Ashruba Wanve,
Age-42 years, Occu:Govt. Service,
R/o-Quarter No.MD26/25/02,
Medical Campus, Ambajogai,
Tq-Ambajogai, Dist-Beed.

¶20

...PETITIONER

¶21

 VERSUS

¶22

wp978.18+

¶23

¶24

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through its Secretary,
 General Administration Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

¶25

2) The District Collector,
 Beed,

¶26

3) The Additional Collector,
 Beed.
...RESPONDENTS

¶27

 ...
 Mr.S.S. Thombre Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mr.S.S. Dande, Government Pleader for
 Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
 ...
 WITH

¶28

 WRIT PETITION NO.995 OF 2018

¶29

Amol Dadasaheb Jeve,
Age-35 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-At Post-Bogandla,
Tq-Shrivardhan, Dist-Raigad

¶30

...PETITIONER
 VERSUS

¶31

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through its Secretary,
 Department of General Administration,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

¶32

2) The Collector,
 Collector Office, Beed,
 Tq. & Dist-Beed,

¶33

wp978.18+

¶34

¶35

3) The Additional Collector,
 Collector Office, Beed,
 Tq. & Dist-Beed.
...RESPONDENTS
 ...
 Mr.Mahesh K. Bhosle with Mr. M.L. Muthal
 Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mr.A.B. Girase, Government Pleader for
 Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶36

 ...
 WITH

¶37

 WRIT PETITION NO.996 OF 2018

¶38

1) Garkal Pralhad Bhimrao,
 Age-35 years, Occu:Service,
 R/o-Gramin Rugnalaya Nandurghat,
 Tq-Kaij, Dist-Beed,

¶39

2) Maruti Raosaheb Rakh,
 Age-46, Occu:Service,
 R/o-PHC Patoda,
 Tq-Chalisgaon, Dist-Jalgaon,

¶40

3) Maharudra Lala Kirdat, Age 33 years, Occu: Service.

¶41

4) Prakash Raghunath Badage, Age 52 years, Occu: Service.

¶42

5) Trupti Vijaykumar Tandale,
 Age 45 Years, Occu: Service.
 R/o. Heramb Talve Nagar
 Behind Sai Angels English School
 Aurangabad Highway, Ahmednagar 414 003

¶43

6) Dattatraya Shripati Sonawane,
 Age 42 years, Occu: Service
 R/o. PHC Anji,
 Tq. and Dist. Wardha.

¶44

wp978.18+

¶45

¶46

7) Parmeshwar Bhanudas Jagtap, Age 43 years, Occu: Service.

¶47

8) Hanumant Dnyanoba Tupe, Age 42 years, Occu: Service.

¶48

9) Sundarrao Dattatraya Badage, Age 53 years, Occu: Service.

¶49

10)Yuvraj Raghunath Shinde, Age 41 years, Occu: Service.

¶50

11)Dwarka Subhash Nagargoje, Age 41 Years, Occu: Service

¶51

12)Ganesh Kisan Nagargoje, Age 36 Years, Occu: Service R/o.Z.P.School, Khadakwadi, Post Chincholi, Tq.Ghansawangi, Dist. Jalna.

¶52

13)Sangita Vitthal Mule, Age 37 years, Occu: Service,

¶53

14)Sanjay Jyotiba Bhosle, Age 42 years, Occu: Service R/o.Z.P.P.S. Ragapur, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed.

¶54

15)Tatyasaheb Laxman Sambre, Age 32 Years, Occu: Service

¶55

16)Ashok Nanabhau Arsul, Age 34 Years, Occu: Service

¶56

 All petitioner nos.1,3,4,7,8 to 11,
 13, 15 and 16:
 R/o.District Civil Hospital, Beed
 Dist.Beed.

¶57

wp978.18+

¶58

¶59

17)Ramrao Limbaji Bangar,

¶60

Age 42 Years, Occu: Service,

¶61

R/o.Deputy Chief Auditor,

¶62

 Local Funds Accounting
 Kulkarni Compound, Near Dusanchar Office,
 Dr.Ambedkar Road, Ratnagiri
 Dist. Ratnagiri

¶63

18)Prabhakar Ramrao Wanve,

¶64

 Age 45 years, Occu:Service
 R/o.District Malaria Officer [Hiwatap Adhikari]
 District Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar,
 District Ahmednagar.

¶65

19)Somnath Asaram Nande, Age Major, Occu: Service, R/o.Office of Deputy Chief Auditor, Beed, Dist. Beed.

¶66

20)Madhukar Tanhaji Sanap,

¶67

 Age 50 years, Occu:Service [Dy.Accountant]

¶68

R/o.Flat No.B502, Kisankrupa Housing Society, Near MHADA colony, Morwadi,

¶69

 Pimpri, Pune-18.

¶70

21)Bhanudas Eknath Ugale,

¶71

Age 32 Years, Occu:Service, At Post Ashti, Tq.Ashti, Dist.Beed.

¶72

...PETITIONERS

¶73

 VERSUS

¶74

1) The State of Maharashtra,

¶75

Through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

¶76

2) The Collector, Collector Office, Beed,

¶77

Tq. & Dist-Beed,

¶78

wp978.18+

¶79

¶80

`3) Directorate of Accounts & Treasuries,`
`Kokan Division, Maharashtra State,` `Mumbai,`
`4) District Civil Surgeon,` `District Civil Hospital, Beed,`
`5) District Malaria Officer(Hiwtap Adhikari),` `District Civil Hospital,` `Ahmednagar, Dist-Ahmednagar,`
`6) Chief Executive Officer,` `Z.P. Beed, Dist-Beed,`
`7) District Malaria Officer(Hiwtap Adhikari),` `Wardha, Dist-Wardha,`
`8) District Malaria Officer(Hiwtap Adhikari),` `Jalgaon, Dist-Jalgaon,`
`9) Chief Executive Officer,` `Z.P. Ahmednagar,` `Dist-Ahmednagar,`
`10) Chief Executive Officer,` `Z.P. Jalna, Dist-Jalna` `...RESPONDENTS`
`...`
`Mr.Mahesh K. Bhosle with Mr. M.L. Muthal`
`Advocate for Petitioner.`
`Mr.S.Y. Mahajan, Additional Government`
`Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 5, 7 & 8.` `...` `WITH`
`WRIT PETITION NO.998 OF 2018`
`1) Sunil s/o Manikrao Sakhare,` `Age-53 years, Occu:Service,`
`R/o-District Malaria Office, Beed,`
`Tq. & Dist-Beed,`

¶81

wp978.18+

¶82

¶83

2) Sakharam s/o Raghuji Wanve, Age-52 years, Occu:Service, R/o-As Above.

¶84

3) Ganpat s/o Sarjerao Wanve, Age-43 years, Occu:Service, R/o-As Above,

¶85

4) Bhausaheb s/o Bhagwanrao Rakh, Age-43 years, Occu:Service, R/o-As Above,

¶86

5) Suresh s/o Uddhav Bangar, Age-41 years, Occu:Service, R/o-As Above,

¶87

6) Mohan s/o Pandurang Nagare, Age-43 years, Occu:Service, R/o-As Above,

¶88

7) Rajendra s/o Sundarrao Sanap, Age-39 years, Occu:Service, R/o-Government Ayurved Medical College, Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist-Osmanabad,

¶89

8) Bhagwan s/o Namdeo Ugalmugale, Age-34 years, Occu:Service, R/o-Government Medical College, Aurangabad, Dist-Aurangabad,

¶90

9) Balasaheb s/o Shamrao Jaybhaye, Age-47 years, Occu:Service, R/o-District Malaria Office, Ahmednagar, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶91

10) Ashok s/o Lahanu Rakh, Age-40 years, Occu:Service, R/o-District Malaria Office, Ahmednagar, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶92

wp978.18+

¶93

¶94

`11) Kailas s/o Ashruba Sonwane,`
`Age-45 years, Occu:Service,` `R/o-As Above`
`12) Janardhan s/o Bhausaheb Bhosale,` `Age 52 years, Occ.Service,` `R/o. as above.`
`13) Tukaram s/o.Pandharinath Nanaware,` `Age 40 years, Occ. Service,` `R/o. as above.`
`14) Ashok s/o. Tukaram Pawar,` `Age 42 Years, Occu. Service,` `R/o. as above.`
`15) Lahu s/o. Uttam Pandit,` `Age 41 years, Occu. Service,` `R/o. as above.`
`16) Vishnu s/o. Sarjerao Sanap,` `Age 45 years, Occu. Service,` `R/o. District General Hospital,` `Gondiya, District Gondiya` `...PETITIONERS` `VERSUS`
`1) The State of Maharashtra,` `Through its Secretary,` `General Administration Department,` `Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,`
`2) The District Collector, Beed,`
`3) The Additional Collector, Beed.` `...RESPONDENTS` `...` `Mr.S.S. Thombre Advocate for Petitioners.` `Mr.S.B. Yawalkar, Additional Government`
`Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.` `...`

¶95

wp978.18+

¶96

¶97

WITH

¶98

 WRIT PETITION NO.1004 OF 2018

¶99

Satish s/o Narayan Bhandwalkar,
Age-42 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Swami Samarth Colony,
Swaraj Nagar, Beed,

¶100

...PETITIONER

¶101

 VERSUS

¶102

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through the Secretary,
 Health Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

¶103

2) The Collector,

¶104

 Beed,

¶105

3) The Additional Collector,

¶106

Beed,

¶107

4) The Director of Health Services, Health Department, Arogya Bhawan, St. George's Hospital Compound, P.D.Mellow Road, Mumbai,

¶108

5) The Deputy Director of Health Services, Latur Division, Latur,

¶109

6) The District Civil Surgeon, Beed. ...RESPONDENTS

¶110

wp978.18+

¶111

¶112

...
 Mr.Ashok R. Tapse Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mr.P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos.1 to 6.

¶113

 ...
 WITH

¶114

 WRIT PETITION NO.1008 OF 2018

¶115

Rajratan s/o Shrimantrao Jaybhaye,
Age-39 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Khandala, Tq. & Dist-Beed

¶116

...PETITIONER

¶117

 VERSUS

¶118

1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

¶119

2) The Collector, Beed, 3) The Additional Collector, Beed,

¶120

4) The Director of Health Services, Health Department, Arogya Bhawan, St. George's Hospital Compound, P.D.Mellow Road, Mumbai,

¶121

5) The Deputy Director of Health Services, Latur Division, Latur,

¶122

6) The District Civil Surgeon, Beed.

¶123

...RESPONDENTS

¶124

wp978.18+

¶125

¶126

 ...
 Mr.Ashok R. Tapse Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mr.P.N.Kutti, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos.1 to 6.

¶127

...

¶128

 WRIT PETITION NO.1011 OF 2018

¶129

Maharudra s/o Babasaheb Wanve,
Age-41 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Government Quarters, Government
Hospital, Beed, Tq. & Dist-Beed.

¶130

...PETITIONER

¶131

 VERSUS

¶132

1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

¶133

2) The Collector, Beed,

¶134

3) The Additional Collector, Beed,

¶135

4) The Director of Health Services, Health Department, Arogya Bhawan, St. George's Hospital Compound, P.D.Mellow Road, Mumbai,

¶136

5) The Deputy Director of Health Services, Latur Division, Latur,

¶137

6) The District Civil Surgeon, Beed.

¶138

...RESPONDENTS

¶139

wp978.18+

¶140

¶141

 ...
 Mr.Ashok R. Tapse Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mr.S.Y. Mahajan, Additional Government
 Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 6.
 ...
 WITH
 WRIT PETITION NO.1017 OF 2018

¶142

Sukhdeo s/o Babasaheb Wanve,
Age-51 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Mahakala, Tq-Ambad, Dist-Jalna,
At present:Government Quarters,
Government Hospital, Georai,
Dist-Beed.
...PETITIONER
 VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through the Secretary,
 Health Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
2) The Collector, Beed,
3) The Additional Collector,
 Beed,
4) The Director of Health Services,
 Health Department,
 Arogya Bhawan, St. George's
 Hospital Compound, P.D.Mellow Road,
 Mumbai,
5) The Deputy Director of Health
 Services, Latur Division,
 Latur,
6) The District Civil Surgeon,
 Beed.
...RESPONDENTS

¶143

wp978.18+

¶144

¶145

 ...
 Mr.Ashok R. Tapse Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mr.P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos.1 to 6.
 ...
 WITH

¶146

 WRIT PETITION NO.1018 OF 2018

¶147

Jivan Manikrao Choure,
Age-35 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Khandala, Post-Morgaon,
Tq. & Dist-Beed.
At present:Gandhinagar, Swami Colony,
Shital Building, Room No.3,
Ground Floor, Kolhapur,
Tq. & Dist-Kolhapur.
...PETITIONER

¶148

 VERSUS

¶149

1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

¶150

2) The Collector, Beed,

¶151

3) The Additional Collector, Beed,

¶152

4) The Director of Health Services, Health Department, Arogya Bhawan, St. George's Hospital Compound, P.D.Mellow Road, Mumbai,

¶153

5) The District Malaria Officer, Tq-Pandharpur, Dist-Solapur,

¶154

wp978.18+

¶155

¶156

6) The District Malaria Officer,
 Tq. & Dist-Kolhapur.
...RESPONDENTS
 ...
 Mr.Ashok R. Tapse Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mr.S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos.1 to 6.
 ...
 WITH
 WRIT PETITION NO.1019 OF 2018
Anil s/o Shivajirao Navale,
Age-40 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Navjivan Shikshak Colony,
Behind Bus Stand, Beed,
Tq. & Dist-Beed.
At present:Kaij, Tq-Kaij,
Dist-Beed.
...PETITIONER
 VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through the Secretary,
 Health Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
2) The Collector, Beed,
3) The Additional Collector, Beed,
4) The Director of Health Services,
 Health Department,
 Arogya Bhawan, St. George's
 Hospital Compound, P.D.Mellow Road,
 Mumbai,
5) The Deputy Director of Health
 Services, Latur Division,
 Latur,

¶157

wp978.18+

¶158

¶159

6) The District Civil Surgeon,
 Beed.

¶160

...RESPONDENTS

¶161

 ...
 Mr.Ashok R. Tapse Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mr.P.N. Kutti, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos.1 to 6.
 ...

¶162

 WITH

¶163

 WRIT PETITION NO.1104 OF 2018

¶164

Rajabhau Dnyanoba Sanap,
Age-46 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Dr. Bandorwala Leprosy Hospital,
Kondhwa, Yevlewadi, Pune.

¶165

...PETITIONER

¶166

 VERSUS

¶167

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through its Secretary,
 Department of General Administration,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

¶168

2) The Collector,
 Collector Office, Beed,
 Tq. & Dist-Beed,

¶169

3) The Additional Collector,
 Collector Office, Beed,
 Tq. & Dist-Beed.

¶170

...RESPONDENTS

¶171

wp978.18+

¶172

¶173

...

¶174

 Mr.Mahesh K. Bhosle with Mr. M.L. Muthal
 Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mr.S.Y. Mahajan, Additional Government
 Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶175

...

¶176

 WITH

¶177

 WRIT PETITION NO.1133 OF 2018

¶178

Chandu Rangnath Jaybhaye,
Age-41 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Khandala, Beed,
Tq. & Dist-Beed.
At present:Nerul, Sector-2,
Aamrapali Apartment,
New Mumbai.

¶179

...PETITIONER
 VERSUS

¶180

1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Collector, Beed, 3) The Additional Collector, Beed,

¶181

4) The Chief Auditor,
 Local Funds Audit, Maharashtra State,
 Kokan Bhavan, 6th Floor,
 New Mumbai.
...RESPONDENTS

¶182

 ...
 Mr.Ashok R. Tapse Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mr.P.N. Kutti, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos.1 to 4.

¶183

...

¶184

 WITH

¶185

wp978.18+

¶186

¶187

 WRIT PETITION NO.1137 OF 2018
Baban s/o Raghunath Wanve,
Age-55 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Raymoha, Tq-Shirur(Kasar),
Dist-Beed,
At present:Kaij, Tq-Kaij,
Dist-Beed.
...PETITIONER
 VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through the Secretary,
 Health Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
2) The Collector, Beed,
3) The Additional Collector,
 Beed,
4) The Director of Health Services,
 Health Department,
 Arogya Bhawan, St. George's
 Hospital Compound, P.D.Mellow Road,
 Mumbai,
5) The Deputy Director of Health
 Services, Latur Division,
 Latur,
6) The District Civil Surgeon,
 Beed.
...RESPONDENTS
 ...
 Mr.Ashok R. Tapse Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mr.P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos.1 to 6.
 ...

¶188

wp978.18+

¶189

¶190

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
 S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.

¶191

DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

¶192

 DATE OF PRONOUNCING ORDER: 21ST FEBRUARY, 2018

¶193

ORDER [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

¶194

1.All these Petitions are filed challenging

¶195

the common order dated 12th January, 2018, passed
by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and the
similar issue is involved in all these Writ
Petitions, therefore all these Petitions were
heard together and the same are being disposed of
by this common order.

¶196

2.As the facts in all these Petitions are
almost similar, for the sake of convenience we
will refer the facts in Writ Petition No.978 of
2018.

¶197

3.Brief facts giving rise to these
Petitions are that, on the basis of the Government

¶198

wp978.18+

¶199

¶200

policy, the Petitioners were appointed as nominees
of the freedom fighters and at present they are
serving in their respective departments. As per
the Government Resolution the procedure is
prescribed for verifying one of the nominee for
getting the government service and in pursuance
thereto all the Petitioners were nominated by the
freedom fighters. Their nominations were verified

¶201

by the competent authorities and all the
Petitioners were appointed by following due
process of law. It is submitted that Writ Petition
No.2611 of 2002 was filed before the High Court

¶202

and as per the order passed in the said Petition,
the directions were given to appoint the committee
comprising of Hon'ble Retired Justice M.R. Mane.
The said committee has recommended for stopping of
pensionary benefits to 349 freedom fighters. The

¶203

said recommendations of the Committee were
challenged before the High Court, and the High
Court vide its order dated 19th March, 2004, set
aside the inquiry report of Retired Justice M.R.

¶204

wp978.18+

¶205

¶206

Mane. Against the said order dated 19th March,
2004, one Shri Bhaurao Dagadu Paralkar approached
before the Supreme Court and filed Special Leave
Petition Nos. 37835-37847/2012 and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court appointed one member committee of
Hon'ble Justice Palkar to inquire the cases of 355
freedom fighters. Pursuant to the report of the
Palkar Commission, the State Government issued
Resolution dated 21st March, and directed to stop
the pensionary benefits of 298 freedom fighters
and further directed to get back the honorary
certificates granted to freedom fighters.

¶207

4.The Petitioners further referred to the
earlier Government Resolution dated 11th February,
2014 and filing of Writ Petition No.1909 of 2014
challenging the said Resolution. The Petitioners
further referred to the order passed in said Writ
Petition No.1909 of 2014. It is further submitted

¶208

that in the meantime, the freedom fighters whose
pensionary benefits were withdrawn pursuant to

¶209

wp978.18+

¶210

¶211

Palkar Commission Report, approached the High
Court but their writ petitions were dismissed.
Being aggrieved by the dismissal of said

¶212

petitions, the freedom fighters approached before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme
Court vide its order dated 25th November, 2013,
allowed the appeals and directed that the
pensionary benefits granted by the State
Government will enure only to the benefit of the
appellants- freedom fighters and not to their
legal heirs/ representatives. It has been further
directed that after the bereavement of the
appellants, the pensionary benefit so granted by
the State Government will come to an end. It is
submitted that in view of the subsequent
development that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
protected the benefits of these freedom fighters,
those are already restored and all the freedom
fighters are getting the pensionary benefits.

¶213

5.It is further submitted by the

¶214

wp978.18+

¶215

¶216

Petitioners that, surprisingly Respondent No.3
issued an order dated 6th September, 2017 and by
the said order, the nominations which were granted
by the office of the District Collector in favour
of 106 nominees including the Petitioners are
cancelled and directed the appointing authority to
forward the original nominations to the office of
the District Collector. Against the said order
dated 6th September, 2017, the Petitioners
approached before the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal by filing various Original Applications.
The learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal

¶217

(for short "MAT") vide its order dated 15th
September, 2017, granted interim protection in
favour of the Petitioners, which came to be
continued from time to time. Thereafter on 12th

¶218

January, 2018 the MAT, by placing reliance on the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
chairman and Managing Director F.C.I. and others

¶219

vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others in Civil
Appeal No.2928 of 2015, vacated the interim

¶220

wp978.18+

¶221

¶222

relief granted in favour of the Petitioners on

¶223

15th September, 2017. Hence these Petitions are
filed.

¶224

6.Learned counsel appearing for the

¶225

respective Petitioners, referring to the grounds
taken in the Petitions, submitted that MAT failed
to consider that the impugned order dated 6th

¶226

September, 2017 issued by the Additional
Collector, Beed is unjust, arbitrary, illegal and

¶227

the same is issued without giving an opportunity
of hearing to the Petitioners and therefore the

¶228

same is in violation of the principles of natural
justice. It is submitted that the Petitioners came
to be appointed after verifying all the procedure

¶229

as contemplated in the policy of the Government
and they have already rendered service for
considerable period and are the permanent
employees of the State Government, therefore the

¶230

action will have to be initiated as per the
provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services

¶231

wp978.18+

¶232

¶233

(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 and till today

¶234

no such process is initiated against the
Petitioners. The nominations are obtained by
fraudulent means and the same were obtained by
following the due process of law. The action which

¶235

was taken by the Government to withdraw the
pensionary benefits is already set aside by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore another action to
cancel the nominations of the Petitioners is
illegal. It is submitted that as the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has protected pensionary benefits of
the freedom fighters, naturally the Petitioners
needs to be protected as they have served for
almost more than 15 years.

¶236

7.Learned counsel further submits that

¶237

Respondent No.3 does not have power and therefore

¶238

it cannot review its own nominations which were
already verified and on the basis of the same the

¶239

Petitioners were appointed by following due
process of law. It is settled principle of law

¶240

wp978.18+

¶241

¶242

that, the authority who issued an order, does not
have a power to cancel or review its own order and
it is for the superior authority to decide the
same. Learned counsel invites our attention to the
order passed in Writ Petition No.1909 of 2014
wherein it is observed that, it would be open for
the Petitioners to claim entitlement to service
protection and it would be open for the concerned
authorities to consider the contentions of the
Petitioners in the light of submissions made
before the appointing authority in reply to the
notices issued to each of the Petitioners. It is

¶243

submitted that in the year 2014 the notices were
issued to the Petitioners and they have replied to
those notices and till today no orders on those
notices are passed but Respondent NO.3 abruptly
issued the impugned order dated 6th September,
2017.

¶244

8.Learned counsel further submits that the

¶245

family members of the Petitioners are depending

¶246

wp978.18+

¶247

¶248

upon them and if their services are terminated,
the Petitioners and their small children would
suffer a lot and they will be put on starvation as
there is no any other source of income available
to them except their service. It is submitted that

¶249

the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the
case of Chairman and Managing Director F.C.I. and
others vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others,
cited supra, cannot be made applicable to the case
of the present Petitioners, as the Petitioners are
not seeking protection of service on invalidation
of their caste claims/ tribe claims. It is
submitted that the interim relief was granted by
the Tribunal and though the matters are yet to be
heard finally, in the midst the Tribunal has
vacated the interim relief and refused to stay the
impugned order dated 6th September, 2017 and
therefore the Petitions deserve to be allowed.

¶250

9.In support of his submissions, learned

¶251

counsel appearing for the Petitioners placed

¶252

wp978.18+

¶253

¶254

reliance upon the exposition of law by the Supreme
Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity
Board and others vs. Leela Singh1, Indian Railway
Construction Co. Ltd. vs. Ajay Kumar in Civil
Appeal No.3299 of 2000, decided on 2nd February,
2003, in the case of Navdeep vs. State of Punjab
and others2, Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. and
others3, Union of India and another vs. M.M.
Sharma4. In support of his submissions, learned

¶255

counsel also placed reliance upon the Judgment of
the Bombay High Court, Bench at Goa in the case of
Kunda Santosh Kerkar alias Kunda Narayan Kerkar

¶256

vs. Hon'ble Speaker, Goa Legislative Assembly and

¶257

others5. Learned counsel, in support of his
submissions, also placed reliance upon the
Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
(CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.) in
group of Writ Petitions bearing Writ Petition
No.217 of 2018 (Tatyaram s/o Dhanlal Kanade and

¶258

1 2007 (12) SCC 146

¶259

2 2006(9) SCC 500

¶260

3 2011(14) SCC 709

¶261

4 2011(11) SCC 293

¶262

5 2016(5) Mh.L.J. 593

¶263

wp978.18+

¶264

¶265

others vs. the State of Maharashtra and others)
and others Writ Petitions, dated 24th January,
2018.

¶266

10.Learned Government Pleader appearing for

¶267

the State submits that the services of the
Petitioners are not terminated and therefore there
is no substance in their contentions that their

¶268

services are terminated or likely to be
terminated. He invites our attention to the
impugned order dated 6th September, 2017, passed
by the Additional Collector, Beed. He submits that

¶269

by way of impugned order, only nominations which
were made in favour of the Petitioners have been
cancelled. Learned Government Pleader invites our
attention to the Government Resolution dated 11th
February,2014issuedbytheGeneral
AdministrationDepartment,Governmentof

¶270

Maharashtra and submits that the decision taken by

¶271

the Collector impugned in these Petitions is
pursuant to the said Government Resolution. He

¶272

wp978.18+

¶273

¶274

further submits that the afore mentioned
Government Resolution dated 11th February, 2014
was challenged before the High Court, however the
Writ Petition bearing No.2998 of 2014 (Tatyasaheb

¶275

s/o Laxman Sambre and another vs. State of
Maharashtra and others) and other connected Writ
Petitions, taking exception to the said Government
Resolution have been rejected by the Division
Bench of this Court (CORAM: R.M. BORDE & A.M.

¶276

BADAR, JJ.) by order dated 17th April, 2014. He
invites our attention to the said order and
submits that during the course of hearing of those
Writ Petitions, similar arguments were advanced
and those are negated by this Court. He also
invites our attention to the order passed by the
Supreme Court in the case of Ram Rao and others
etc. etc. vs. District Collector Beed and others

¶277

(Civil Appeal Nos. 10624-10636 of 2013 [@ Special
Leave Petition (C) Nos.37835-37847 of 2012]) and

¶278

in particular observations made by the Supreme
Court in Para 7 of the order and submits that

¶279

wp978.18+

¶280

¶281

there is no substance in the Petitions. Learned
Government Pleader also invites our attention to
the reasons assigned by the MAT in the impugned
order. He submits that the Original Applications
can be heard finally by the MAT and there is no
reason to interfere in the order passed by the
MAT. In support of his submissions, learned
Government Pleader placed reliance upon the
exposition of law by the Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No.8928 of 2015 Etc. Etc. (Chairman and
Managing Director FCI and others) and other Civil
Appeals, decided on 6th July, 2017.

¶282

11.We have considered the submissions of the
learned counsel appearing for the respective
Petitioners and also learned Government Pleader
appearing for the State. We have carefully perused
the pleadings, grounds taken in the Petition,
annexures thereto.

¶283

12.At the threshold it will be gainful to

¶284

wp978.18+

¶285

¶286

reproduce herein below Para 7 from the Judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Rao and
others vs. District Collector Beed and others,
referred herein above:

¶287

"7. Accordingly, we allow these

¶288

appeals and set aside the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High
Court. We further direct that the
pensionary benefits granted by the
State Government will enure only to the
benefit of the appellants and not to
their legal heirs/ representatives.
afterthebereavementofthe

¶289

appellant(s), the pensionary benefit so
granted by the State Government will
come to an end."

¶290

13.Pursuant to the order passed by the

¶291

Supreme Court in the case of Ram Rao and others

¶292

vs. District Collector Beed, referred above, the

¶293

Government of Maharashtra, in its General
Administration Department, issued the Government
Resolution dated 11th February, 2014, referred

¶294

wp978.18+

¶295

¶296

above. At this juncture, it would be apt to
reproduce herein below the relevant clauses from
the said Government Resolution dated 11th
February, 2014:

¶297

" 'kklu fu.kZ; "

¶298

1 ½ lnj 298 cksxl LokraŒ; lSfudkauk fnysys LokraŒ; lSfud lUeku fuo`Rrh osru O;ktklg olwy djkos-

¶299

2½ ojhy loZ cksxl LokraŒ; lSfudkaP;k ikY;kauk ns.;kr vkysyh ukefunsZ'kus jnn djkohr-

¶300

3½ ;k 298 cksxl LokraŒ; lSfudkaP;k T;k ikY;kauk uksd&;k ns.;kr vkysY;k vkgsr] R;kauk R;kaps Eg.k.ks ekaM.;kph la/kh fu;qDrh izkf/kdk&;kauh n;koh o R;kauk lsosrwu deh djkos-

¶301

T;k izdj.kh 'kklu fu;qDrh izkf/kdkjh vkgs] R;k izdj.kh laiw.kZ ri'khyklg lacaf/kr iz'kkldh; foHkkxkdMs iq<hy dk;ZokghlkBh lanHkZ djkok-

¶302

4½ ek- ikydj vk;ksxkus dk<ysys fu"d"kZ fopkjkr ?ksÅu ;k loZ 298 t.kkafo:n/k Qlo.kwd dsY;klanHkkZr xqUgs nk[ky djkosr- "

¶303

14.The said Government Resolution was

¶304

wp978.18+

¶305

¶306

challenged by some of the Petitioners and
similarly situated other nominees of the freedom
fighters who are in the employment. The copy of
the Judgment in Writ Petition No.2998 of 2014
(Tatyasaheb s/o Laxman Sambre and another vs.
State of Maharashtra and others) and other
connected Writ Petitions, dated 17th April, 2014,
referred above, is placed on record by the
Petitioners. We deem it appropriate to reproduce
Para Nos.3 to 9 of the said Judgment, which will
make clear the sequence of events and factual
scenario for better understanding of the facts of

¶307

the present case and challenge made before the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and by way of
filing the present Writ Petitions:

¶308

"3 Certain facts leading to issuance of
Government Resolution dated 11.02.2014 need to
be taken into consideration. A petition was
presented in this Court by one Mr.Bhaurao
Paralkar, being PIL No.2619 of 2002. It was
alleged in the petition that there are
hundreds of freedom fighters who have taken

¶309

wp978.18+

¶310

¶311

benefit of the Government policy and are in
receipt of freedom fighter’s pension. It was
alleged in the petition that those freedom
fighters, mainly from Beed District, have
secured benefits on the strength of fabricated
documents and by practicing fraud and
misrepresentation. Even though such of the
freedom fighters were not eligible to receive
benefits of pension under the State policy,
they were being paid pension amount regularly
under the orders issued by the State
Government.

¶312

4 The Division Bench of this Court, while
dealing with the Public Interest Litigation
(PIL) No.2619/2002, in order to enquire into
the allegations made in the petition, directed
constitution of Enquiry Committee under the
Chairmanship of Mr.M.R.Maney. The Committee,
constituted under the directions of this
Court, scrutinised the record and recommended
withdrawal of pensionary benefits in favour of
349 freedom fighters. While disposing of the
petition, challenging the order passed by
Maney Committee, the Division Bench of this
Court did not approve the recommendations made
by the Maney Committee and directed the State
Government to continue to pay benefits to the
freedom fighters. 5 The decision rendered by
the Division Bench of this Court directing

¶313

wp978.18+

¶314

¶315

resumption of pensionary benefits to the
freedom fighters was a matter of consideration
in Civil Appeals No. 51625167 of 2005, arising
out of SLP Nos.11344 and 11348 of 2004,
presented by Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar. The
Supreme Court, considering the allegations
made in the Civil Appeal, directed
constitution of one Man Commission to enquire
into the allegations in respect of bogus and
misleading claims of 354 freedom fighters. The
OneMan Commission, constituted under the
directions of the Supreme Court, inquired into
the matter and recommended the State to
withdraw pensionary benefits as well as all
other benefits extended to 298 freedom
fighters from Beed district. It has been also
directed that apart from withdrawal of
pensionarybenefits,freedomfighter’s
certificates, issued in favour of such of the
freedom fighters, shall also be withdrawn. The
State Government, accordingly issued a
Resolution on 21.03.2007 and issued directions
to the concerned Treasury Officers and Banks
to stop payment of pension amount to such 298
freedom fighters.

¶316

6 It is also a matter of record that many
freedom fighters, who were aggrieved by the
decision of the State Government, approached
this Court by presenting petitions. However,

¶317

wp978.18+

¶318

¶319

most of the petitions have been turned down by
this Court thereby giving finality to the
decision of the State Government in respect of
stoppage of pensionary benefits. It is also a
matter of record that freedom fighters
approached the Supreme Court by presenting
Civil Appeal Nos.1062410636 of 2013, arising
out of SLP Nos.3783537847 of 2012. The Supreme
Court expressed the opinion that keeping in
view age of the freedom fighters and also
keeping in view the fact that at this old age,
if small benefit that was already granted to
them is withdrawn, it may be difficult for
them to sustain themselves. The Supreme Court,
while allowing the appeals, directed that the
pensionary benefits granted to the freedom
fighters will enure only to the benefit of the
appellants, who are before the Supreme Court,
and not to their legal heirs/representatives.
After the bereavement of the appellants, the
pensionary benefit so granted by the State
Government will come to an end.

¶320

7 Although the State Government took a
decision in respect of withdrawal of
pensionary benefits, however, other benefits
extended under the Government policy, to such
of the freedom fighters who have claimed their
entitlement on the basis of fabricated record
or by practicing fraud and misrepresentation,

¶321

wp978.18+

¶322

¶323

were not withdrawn. As such, petition bearing
Writ Petition No.2246 of 2008 came to be
presented by Bhaurao Dagadu Paralkar and
others, which has been decided by Division
Bench of this Court on 27.09.2013. While
disposing of the writ petition, a direction
was issued to the Chief Secretary, Government
of Maharashtra, to look into the
representation made by the petitioners on
29.09.2007 in respect of withdrawal of
benefits to such of the freedom fighters who
are found to be not eligible to claim the
benefits by Palkar Commission. It is observed
in paragraph no. 8 of the order, as quoted
below:

¶324

“8 Whatever amount has been paid to or
concessions are enjoyed by those
nominees after acceptance of report of
the Justice Palkar Committee by this
Court till date, can be an issue in
dispute and it’s recovery may also take
sometime but future enjoyment of such
concessions and benefits can definitely
be stopped by the State Government by
taking appropriate cognizance of the
issue being raised by learned amicus
through petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Hence,
we direct the Chief Secretary to take
necessary decision at the earliest and
in any case within period stipulated
above.”

¶325

8 In pursuance to the decision of Division

¶326

wp978.18+

¶327

¶328

Bench of this Court, the Chief Secretary,
after extending hearing to the amicus curiae
representing the petitioners before the State
Government, issued certain directions. Those
include:

¶329

1) Recovery of pensionary benefits
extended to 298 ineligible freedom
fighters together with interest;

¶330

2) To cancel the nominations issued by
such freedom fighters in favour of
their wards;

¶331

3) To take action of termination of
services of the nominees of such
freedom fighters after extending
hearing to them by the appointing
authority; and

¶332

4) To launch criminal prosecution
against such 298 freedom fighters for
deceiving the State.

¶333

9 The petitioners, in the instant petition,
are concerned with the directions in respect
of dispensing with their services. The
petitioners before us have secured employment
on the strength of nominations issued by the
freedom fighters against whom action has been
proposed by the State Government and who are
in employment for the period ranging between
6/7 years to 15 years. The petitioners contend
that they are governed by the relevant service
rules and their services cannot be terminated

¶334

wp978.18+

¶335

¶336

except by observing the procedure prescribed
under service rules. The petitioners contend
that the direction issued by the State
Government is violative of the guarantee
available to the petitioners under Article 311
of the Constitution of India since they are
employees of the State Government."

¶337

15.In the said Writ Petitions, the Division
Bench of this Court (CORAM: R.M. BORDE & A.M.
BADAR, JJ.) in Para 12 of the order dated 17th
April, 2014, held thus:

¶338

"12 One of the benefits extended to the
freedom fighters is of accommodating
nominees of such freedom fighters in
employment under the State or Local
bodies. The petitioners, before us, are
the nominees of such freedom fighters who
are held to be disentitled to receive
pensionary and other benefits. Since the
freedom fighters themselves are held
ineligible to receive benefits, the
benefits extended to the petitioners in
the form of offering employment on the
basis of nominations issued by the

¶339

wp978.18+

¶340

¶341

freedom fighters is liable to be taken
away. The appointment of the petitioners
is admittedly by way of an exception to
the due procedure adopted by the State
Government in offering employment. The
petitioners, by way of concession, have
been accommodated in employment without
following due procedure prescribed for
offering employment under the State,
Local bodies or instrumentality of the
State. The petitioners have been granted
precedence since they are nominees of the
freedom fighters. Once a conclusion is
reached that the freedom fighters, who
have issued the nomination in favour of
the petitioners, are disentitled to claim
benefits under the Government policy, the
petitioners, on the strength of such
nominations, are not entitled to claim
service protection as a matter of right.
The benefits claimed by the freedom
fighters, who are held to be disentitled
to claim such benefits including the
benefit in the form of employment to one
of the close relations of the freedom
fighters. are liable to be withdrawn."

¶342

wp978.18+

¶343

¶344

16.We find considerable force in the

¶345

arguments advanced by the learned Government Pleader that the challenge to the validity of the said Government Resolution has been turned down and further the Clause 2) in the said Government Resolution i.e. " 2½ ojhy loZ cksxl LokraŒ; lSfudkaP;k ikY;kauk ns.;kr vkysyh ukefunsZ'kus jnn djkohr- " has been held valid and therefore only on the basis of said provision in the Government Resolution, the nominations given in favour of the Petitioners that they are the nominees of the freedom fighters, has been cancelled by the Collector. Upon careful perusal of the reasons assigned by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has considered the entire sequence of events and the order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1062410636 of 2013, referred above, relevant Government Resolutions and also the Judgment of the Division

¶346

Bench in Writ Petition No.2246 of 2008, and also
various Judgments of the Supreme Court and reached

¶347

wp978.18+

¶348

¶349

to the conclusion that the decision of the

¶350

Collector to cancel the nominations of the
Petitioners needs no interference.

¶351

17.Upon independent scrutiny of the entire

¶352

material placed on record, we are also of the
prima facie opinion that the decision taken by the
Collector in the impugned order that, out of 298
bogus freedom fighters, as per the record of the
office, the legal heirs/ close relatives of 106
freedom fighters who found to be bogus freedom
fighters, who have taken disadvantage of such
nominations secured employment in Government,
Semi-Government or Local Bodies etc., the
nominations executed by the office in their favour
and no objections given by the Collector Office
stands cancelled" is correct.

¶353

18.The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,

¶354

after taking into consideration the arguments
advanced by the counsel appearing for the parties

¶355

wp978.18+

¶356

¶357

and also the documents placed on record, so also
the decision of the Supreme Court and High Court,
of which reference has already been made, in
Para 9, reached to the following conclusions:

¶358

"9. From the above discussion of the
facts as well as analysis of the
decisions of Hon'ble High Court as well
as Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear
that the nomination of the services of
the applicants have been cancelled on
the strength of concluded fact that
nominators were not entitled to
nominate them. Their own claim of being
freedom fighters was found fraudulent
one. The decision of the respondents
regarding cancellation of nomination
certificates cannot be assailed. The
only question that would remain as to
whether due to the fact of being
employed since long, having family to
maintain, protection can be granted to
them."

¶359

In the light of discussion herein above,

¶360

19.

¶361

wp978.18+

¶362

¶363

in our considered view the impugned order passed

¶364

by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal needs
no interference.

¶365

20.The apprehension expressed by the

¶366

Petitioners that their services can be terminated
at any time, is mis-founded. Clause 3) of the
Government Resolution dated 11th February, 2014,
referred herein above, makes it clear that only
after giving proper opportunity to the nominees of
the freedom fighters who are in the Government
service/employment like the Petitioners, the
appointing authority shall take the decision of
terminating their services. As rightly submitted
by the learned Government Pleader, the services of

¶367

the Petitioners are not terminated and the
Petitioners will get an opportunity to put forth
their contentions as and when the appointing
authority will invoke Clause 3) of the said
Government Resolution.

¶368

wp978.18+

¶369

¶370

21.We have considered the prayers in the

¶371

Petitions, the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the Petitioners and also the
material placed on record, keeping in view that
the Petitioners have approached this Court
challenging the interim order passed by the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal thereby
refusing to stay the impugned order dated 6th
September, 2017 and Original Applications filed by
the Petitioners are pending before the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal and, therefore we refrain
ourselves from elaborating the reasons on the
merits of the contentions raised in the said
Original Applications.

¶372

22.As observed earlier, in our opinion, the
view taken by the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal and the impugned order is in consonance
with the material placed on record and keeping in
view the pronouncements of the Supreme Court and
High Courts and the relevant Government

¶373

wp978.18+

¶374

¶375

Resolutions issued by the Government of

¶376

Maharashtra from time to time and therefore needs
no interference.

¶377

23.For the reasons stated herein above, all
the Writ Petitions stand rejected.

¶378

24.During the course of hearing of the
Petitions, it has been informed that the

¶379

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has fixed the
Original Applications for hearing on 13th March,
2018. It may be open for the Petitioners to apply

¶380

for early hearing of those Original Applications,
after giving notice to the Respondents. We expect
that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal will
hear all the Original Applications and decide the
same, as expeditiously as possible, however in any
case by the end of March, 2018.

¶381

25.It is made clear that the observations

¶382

made herein above are prima facie in nature and

¶383

wp978.18+

¶384

¶385

are confined to the adjudication of the present
Writ Petitions and the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal or any other Forum/ Authority shall not
get influenced by the said observations.

¶386

[S.M. GAVHANE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶387

asb/FEB18

¶388

. After pronouncement of the Judgment, the

¶389

counsel appearing for the Petitioners prayed for
continuation of ad-interim order. The prayer is
vehemently opposed by learned Government Pleader.

¶390

Since, we have made observations that the

¶391

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal shall make
endeavour to hear and dispose of Original
Applications as expeditiously as possible,
however, by the end of March, 2018, in that view
of the matter, in our opinion further continuation

¶392

of ad-interim order would cause difficulty for

¶393

the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal to hear

¶394

and decide the Original Applications. In that view

¶395

wp978.18+

¶396

¶397

of the matter, prayed for continuation of ad-

¶398

interim order stands rejected.

¶399

[S.M. GAVHANE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶400

asb/FEB18

Sunil Manikrao Sakhare and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sunil Manikrao Sakhare and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Somnath Swami and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Abdul Azim Vaziroddin and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nitin Ashruba Dhanve and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balasaheb Ashruba Wanve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhaskar Eknath Dhere and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rahul Dnyanoba Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others