Dismissed

Bebinanda Ramkrushna Sirsat v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Education and Sports Department, Mumbaia and 2 Others

Bombay HC19 Sept 2019WP/4854/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order records representation by the Zilla Parishad respondent regarding the decision on petitioners' representation within four weeks. The High Court disposed of all listed writ petitions without adjudication, keeping all questions open and directing no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of with all questions kept open; no costs awarded.

Bebinanda Ramkrushna Sirsat Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2019)

Order

1909wp6404.19

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 6404/2019.

¶6

Riyaj Ahmed Saroddin-VERSUS- Zilla Parishad. Akola.

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 6405/2019.

¶8

Ku. Samina Yasmin Ahmed Khan. VERSUS- Zilla Parishad. Akola and another.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4770/2019.

¶9

Vandana Santosh Palaspagar-VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and others.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4853/2019.

¶10

Farhana Talat Shahzad Khan-VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and others.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4854/2019.

¶11

Bebinanda Ramkrushna Sirsat -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and others.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4856/2019.

¶12

Salma Nazam Mohd. Ibrahim-VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and others.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4857/2019.

¶13

Ku. Laxmi Sukhdev Bambore-VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and others.

¶14

Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders
or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶15

Shri R.D. Karode, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri D.P. Thakare, Addl.G.P. for Respondent - State.
Shri K.S. Malokar, Advocate for Respondent Zilla Parishad.

¶16

CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE & VINAY JOSHI, JJ.

¶17

DATE : SEPTEMBER 19, 2019.

¶18

Heard.

¶19

2.Learned Counsel appearing for respondent
Zilla Parishad, Akola makes a statement that within a
period of four weeks from today, representation of
petitioners shall be decided in accordance with the
policy laid down in the Government Resolution.

¶20

3.In view of above, Writ Petitions are
disposed of. All questions are kept open. no cost.

¶21

JUDGE JUDGE

¶22

Rgd.

Bebinanda Ramkrushna Sirsat v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Education and Sports Department, Mumbaia and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bebinanda Ramkrushna Sirsat v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Education and Sports Department, Mumbaia and 2 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

Smt. Kalapana W/O Vishwasrao Khandare Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Forest and Revenue Department, Mumbai and Other

Anil Ramchandra Chimote Vs the State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Co-Op. Marketing and Textile Dept. and Others

Dattu S/O Damodhar Sawarbandhe and Others Vs State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Bhandara and Others

Farhana Talat Shahzad Khan Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Education and Sports Department, Mumbai and 2 Others

Ku. Laxmi Sukhdev Bhambore Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Education and Sports Department, Mumbai and Others

Salama Nazam Mohd. Ibrahim Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Education and Sports Department, Mumbai and Others