Dismissed

Akhil Bhartiya O.B.C. Mahasangh, through Its Chairman, Shri Baban Bhauraoji Taywade and Another v. Union of India, Thr.Its Secretary, Department Ot Human Resource and Higher Education,New Dlehi and

Bombay HC12 Jun 2019PIL/87/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court addressed a PIL seeking 27% OBC reservation in 15% AIQ medical seats in Maharashtra. The Court dismissed the petition as the Apex Court had already addressed the issue and permitted withdrawal of the challenge to the interim order, making the PIL sub-judice.

What did the court decide?

The PIL and all civil applications filed therein are dismissed.

Akhil Bhartiya O.B.C. Mahasangh, through Its… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

1206pil87.18.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

Public Interest Litigation No.87 of 2018 Akhil Bhartiya O.B.C. Mahasangh, through its Chairman- Shri Baban Bhauraoji Taywade, Nagpur, and another Versus

¶5

Union of India, through its Secretary, Department of Human Resource and Higher Education, New Delhi, and others.

¶6

Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order

¶7

Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶8

Shri U.M. Aurangabadkar, ASGI for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Ms M.A. Barbade, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.5.

¶9

Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Vinay Joshi, JJ. Date : 12th June, 2019

¶10

This Public Interest Litigation claims the reliefs as under :

¶11

“(i) hold and declare that the action of respondent no.3 – Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi and respondent no.4 – Director General of Health Services, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi in not providing 27% reservation to O.B.C. students for admission to Medical Courses (First Year) in State of Maharashtra under 15% All India Quota is void and illegal with further direction to these respondents to provide 27% reservation to O.B.C. students, under 15% A.I.Q. forthwith;

¶12

(ii) direct the respondent no.4 – Director General of Health Services, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi to consider the claim of petitioner no.2 provisionally for admission to first year Medical

¶13

¶14

1206pil87.18.odt

¶15

Course in the State of Maharashtra under 15% All India Quota forthwith;

¶16

(iii) direct the respondent no.4 – Director General of Health Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi to cancel the first round of allotment conducted on 20 and 21 June, 2018 and conduct the fresh process for providing 27% reservation to O.B.C. student under 15% A.I.Q. for admission in 1st year Medical Course for academic year 2018-19;

¶17

(iv) grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ”

¶18

The interim relief was also claimed in this PIL to direct the respondent No.4 – Director General of Health Services, New Delhi, not to publish the list of second round of Admission (Allotment) under 15% All India Quota to be published on 10th and 11th July, 2018 during the pendency of this PIL. The further interim relief was also claimed to stay the further process of medical admissions until further orders.

¶19

On 16-7-2018, this Court noted the argument that by the order passed by the Madras High Court, the entire admission process is held in abeyance. It was a statement made by the learned ASGI that during the said period, no steps to the prejudice of the petitioners will be taken. On the basis of such statement, this Court passed an interim order in Para 3 of the said order as under :

¶20

¶21

1206pil87.18.odt

¶22

“3. Till then no steps to the prejudice of the present petitioners be taken. ”

¶23

The Union of India approached the Apex Court challenging the aforesaid interim order by filing SLP No.20287 of 2018. The Apex Court passed a reasoned order, making a reference to Writ Petition (C) No.443 of 1993, titled “Sharwan Kumar vs. Director General of Health Services & Anr.”, and the other connected writ petitions pending in the Apex Court in which an order was passed on 30-4-1993. The Apex Court had directed that in case of any difficulty felt by the Director General of Health Services or any other person including the State Authorities or Universities in the implementation of the All India Quota Scheme, they can approach the Apex Court. In view of the said order, the Apex Court observed in the order dated 1-8-2018 that there was no reason why this issue had fallen for consideration before the High Court. The Apex Court also observed in the order dated 1-8-2018 that the existence of OBC quota is clearly a matter of the scheme vide the Apex Court's order dated 31-1-2007 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.138 of 2006 titled “Abhay Nath & Ors. vs. University of Delhi & Ors.”. The Apex Court, therefore, stayed the interim order passed by this Court on 31-7-2018 and also the further proceedings before this Court in this PIL.

¶24

Ultimately, when the matter came up before the Apex Court on 17-9-2018, the SLP was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the parties to file an application for impleadment in the pending matter/s.

¶25

¶26

1206pil87.18.odt

¶27

In view of the aforesaid factual position, we find that the petitioners are entitled to approach the Apex Court by way of an application for intervention in the pending matter/s or adopt such other remedies as are available in law. However, we are sure that in view of the order passed by the Apex Court, this PIL cannot be kept pending.

¶28

Hence, with the aforesaid observations, we dismiss this PIL. Needless to say that all civil applications filed in this PIL stand disposed of.

¶29

(Vinay Joshi, J.) (R.K. Deshpande, J.)

¶30

Lanjewar, PS

Akhil Bhartiya O.B.C. Mahasangh, through Its Chairman, Shri Baban Bhauraoji Taywade and Another v. Union of India, Thr.Its Secretary, Department Ot Human Resource and Higher Education,New Dlehi and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhil Bhartiya O.B.C. Mahasangh, through Its Chairman, Shri Baban Bhauraoji Taywade and Another v. Union of India, Thr.Its Secretary, Department Ot Human Resource and Higher Education,New Dlehi and

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

Shri. Vijay Mahadev Kaparekar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Baban Raoji Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sudhir Madhav Joshi Vs D. Y. Patil College - Ramrao Adik Education Society and Ors.

Parent'S Association of Medical Students - Maharashtra Vs Director General of Income-Tax (Inv),Pune and Ors.

Conscious Citizen Forum an Ngo Reg. through Members Vs State of Maharashtra through the Public Prosecutor, and Ors.

Ajay Radheshyam Bansal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

All Maharashtra Human Rights Welfare Association Vs Mumbai Circket Association and 2 Ors.

Rafique Ahmed Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Shri Balmukund Rambhajan Agrawal and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Urban Development Department, through the Principal Secretary, Mumbai and Oth

Rajesh S/O Gulabro Malkhede Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Narkhed and Others

M/S Shah Brothers Firm, through Its Partner Nikunj S/O Damji Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Home, Mumbai and 4

Shital S/O. Shantilal Jain and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Forest and Revenue Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Vitthal S/O. Mahadeorao Gawande Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Forest and Revenue Dept. and Others

Siyaram S/O Gondusao Sivane Vs State of Maharashtra, Food and Civil Supply Dept. Thr. Its Secretary, Mumbai and Others