Dismissed

Shri Balaji Typewriting Institute, Beed v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC20 Jun 2019WP/193/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash a screening committee's decision regarding new typewriting institutions. The Court held that it cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact and thus dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed on the ground of existence of disputed questions of fact.

Shri Balaji Typewriting Institute, Beed Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

913WP19315.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 193 OF 2015 WITH

¶4

CA/8315/18 IN WP/193/15

¶5

Shri Balaji Typewriting Institute, Kada

¶6

..PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Maharashtra and Others

¶9

..RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.D. Ghayal, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 Mr. N.K. Tungar, Advocate for respondent no.4 Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for respondent nos. 5 and 6

¶11

CORAM : P.B. VARALE AND R.G. AVACHAT, JJ. DATED : 20^th JUNE, 2019

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Petition was heard extensively by us. The record was produced before this Court in response to order of Division Bench dated 13^th March, 2019.

¶14

Our attention was invited by learned A.G.P. to the documents in the record and also reference of the documents in the petition and affidavit inreply. The screening committee constituted for consideration of the proposals for opening of new typewriting institutions in its minutes of meeting referred to a letter submitted by petitioner. The affidavitinreply

¶15

1 / 2

¶16

913WP19315.odt

¶17

filed on behalf of Respondent No.4 takes a stand that petitioner was an employee working with Respondent No.4 for sometime as an instructor. The screening committee refers to a letter submitted by petitioner withdrawing his claim. The screening committee, in view of letter submitted by petitioner, reconsidered the proposal. Now this very letter is heavily criticized by learned Counsel for petitioner, submitting before us that such letter had never been submitted by petitioner to screening committee.

¶18

Now there are two divergent sets of facts and these facts are disputed questions of facts. This Court, while exercising its powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India, can certainly not extend the scope so as to deal with the disputed questions of facts raised before this Court. There are other disputed questions of facts also submitted and countered by the parties, as such Court cannot entertain the petition. On this ground itself the petition is dismissed.

¶19

In view of dismissal of petition, no order is required to be passed in pending application. Civil application, therefore, is disposed of.

¶20

( R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) ( P.B. VARALE, J. )

¶21

SSD

¶22

2 / 2

Shri Balaji Typewriting Institute, Beed v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Balaji Typewriting Institute, Beed 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Another Vs Rahul Ashok Prakashkar and Others

Suchita Chokhaji Ingle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sakharam Sabhaji Thube Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mukund Shankarlal Dayma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shakuntala Govindrao Nade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri Balaji Typewriting Institute Beed through Proprietor / Principal B M Bhavar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others