Disposed

Shankar Tatyaba Sangle and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC4 Oct 2019WP/6267/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a writ petition challenging a communication issued by a respondent institution based on a newspaper report. Upon clarification from the State Election Commission that no such prohibitory orders existed, the Court found the communication inconsequential and disposed of the petition without further inquiry.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shankar Tatyaba Sangle and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Election Law | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

6267.19wp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.6267 OF 2019

¶5

Shankar s/o Tatyaba Sangle,
Age: 50 years, Occ: Service,
R/o. Aditya Nagari, Beed,
Dist. Beed & anr

¶6

PETITIONERS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra
Through Chief Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032
& orsRESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr Girish K. Thigale (Naik), Advocate for the
petitioners;

¶10

Mrs P.V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1,2 & 4;
Mr S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.3;
Mr A.D. Aghav, Advocate for respondent No.5

¶11

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &

¶12

AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

¶13

DATED : 4th OCTOBER, 2019

¶14

ORAL ORDER:

¶15

Heard Mr. Thigale, learned Counsel for the

¶16

petitioners.

¶17

2.ThepetitionersapproachedthisCourt

¶18

challenging the communication issued by the respondent –
institution dated 1st April, 2019 placed on record at

¶19

Exhibit-A. Perusal of this communication shows that this
communication draws support from a newspaper item
published in local newspaper ‘Daily Parshwabhumi’. Mr.
Thigale, learned Counsel submitted that as per knowledge
of the petitioners, State Election Commission had not
issued such orders thereby preventing or prohibiting the
teachers working in the private educational institutions
from participating in campaigns arranged by the political
parties.

¶20

3.Notice was issued by this Court vide order dated
10th June, 2019. In response to the notice, Mr. Shelke,
learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 – State
Election Commission makes a positive statement before
this Court that no such orders are issued by the State
Election Commission whereby there is any prevention or

¶21

prohibition for a teacher working in the private
educational institution to participate in the election
campaign.

¶22

4.In view of submission of Mr. Shelke, learned
Counsel, it can safely be stated that if newspaper item
itself is based on erroneous impression, the consequent
communication issued by the institution would loose its
efficacy and communication would be inconsequential in
nature.

¶23

5.Thus, considering the statement made on behalf

¶24

of respondent No.3 – State Election Commission, the

¶25

petition is disposed of.

¶26

 [AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.] [PRASANNA B. VARALE,J.]

¶27

Tupe

Shankar Tatyaba Sangle and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shankar Tatyaba Sangle and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gangamai Education Trusts through Its Chairman Manohar Dattatraya Patil and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

M/S Bhaskara Agencies through Partner Vs Union of India and Others

M/S Renuka Gas Services through Its Partner Vs Union of India and Others

Dayanand Vaijinathappa Swami Vs Ravindra Sontakke and Another

Vilas Shivdas Padwal and Ors. Vs Mr. Maheshkumar v. Meghmale and Anr.

Vijaykumar Nilkanth Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others