Dismissed

Laxman Dharmaji Bhosale v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Mar 2019PIL/6/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a PIL challenging the transfer of a Senior Police Inspector. Relying on Prakash Singh and Dr. Duryodhan Sahu, the Court held that service matters are not suitable for PIL unless the officer challenges it personally, and the petition was accordingly dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Public Interest Petition was dismissed; no interference with the transfer order was granted.

Laxman Dharmaji Bhosale Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2019)

23-pil-6-19.doc

1/3

pdp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 6 OF 2019

¶6

Laxman Dharmaji Bhosale Chairman of Samajik Jan Andolan Parishad, Maharashtra State.

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents

¶10

Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Prashant Darandale for petitioner.

¶11

Ms. N. M. Mehra, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶12

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL, CJ. & N. M. JAMDAR, J.

¶13

MARCH 08, 2019.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

The petitioner, a resident of Pune, has filed this petition purported to be in public interest, questioning the transfer of respondent no.5 – Senior Police Inspector.

¶16

The petitioner states that he has formed an

¶17

2/3

¶18

23-pil-6-19.doc

¶19

Organization to render social service. He has moved this court challenging the order of transfer of respondent no.5 – Senior Police Inspector, Kondhwa Police Station, Pune to Special Branch, Pune City, Pune Police Commissionerate on 17/10/2018. The petitioner has narrated various grounds and circumstances, which, according to the petitioner, led to the transfer of respondent no.5. He has attributed motive, bias and malafides on the part of the State authority to transfer the respondent no. 5.

¶20

We have heard Mr. Mihir Desai, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh vs. Union of India and ors¹ . Relying on the said decision, Mr. Desai contends that when the Supreme Court has laid down a mandate that there shall not be mid-term transfer of police officer, the transfer, such as of respondent no.5, will have to be set aside. The respondent no.5 continues in the employment of the State.

¶21

We have perused the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh (Supra). It is equally settled by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and ors. vs. V. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and ors.,^2, and followed in various

¶22

1 (2006) 8 SCC 1 2 AIR 1999 SC 114

¶23

3/3

¶24

23-pil-6-19.doc

¶25

other subsequent judgments, that the court should not entertain public interest litigation in respect of the service matters, barring certain exception, such as a writ of quo-warranto. There is no reason at all as to why the respondent no.5, a Police Inspector, cannot challenge his transfer, taking the very same grounds which the petitioner has taken, if they are genuine.

¶26

In view of this position, we are not inclined to interfere in our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. We refrain from making any further comments on merits of the order of transfer, in case the respondent no.5 chooses to challenge his transfer order, which challenge would be considered on its own merits.

¶27

The Public Interest Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶28

N. M. JAMDAR, J. CHIEF JUSTICE

Laxman Dharmaji Bhosale v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Dharmaji Bhosale v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Kamlakar Pathak Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Jan Mukti Morcha vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Grampanchayat Perane , Tq Haveli , Pune Thru Sarpanch Shri. Rupesh S/O Chandrakant Thombare Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru the Prin. Secretary, State Excise Dept. and Ors.

Ramdas Hiru Mhatre and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra (through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya) and Ors.

Kalpruksha Enterprises through Its Proprietor Vaibhav Avdhutrao Mharolkar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Smt. Kalpana Rangnath Inamdar Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Government Pleader and Ors.

Mr. Hemant B. Patil Vs State of Maharashtra, through Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Mr. Hemant B. Patil Vs State of Maharashtra Thru Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Kishor Bansilal Parikh and Anr. Vs the Union of India, through Secrtary, Ministry of Environment and Forests and Ors.

Kishor Bansilal Parikh and Anr. Vs the Union of India, through Secrtary, Ministry of Environment and Forests and Ors.

Mukund Bhambooji Nagotkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Mr. Rajesh Devanand Sawant

Smt. Kalpana Rangnath Inamdar Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Government Pleader and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Shobha Gajendra Parekar and Ors.