Remanded

Santosh Popat Survase v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC8 Jan 2020CP/35/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a contempt petition arising from non-compliance with an earlier order dated 06.08.2019, directing respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's claim for appointment on verification of documents within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 directed to decide the petitioner's claim for appointment on merits within four weeks.

Santosh Popat Survase Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

916cp35-20

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

916 CONT. PETITION NO.35 OF 2020

¶4

IN WP/2030/2018

¶5

SANTOSH POPAT SURVASE

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr Ghute Patil Kishor J. And P R Kadam AGP for Respondents State: Mr K N Lokhande

¶9

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. DATE : 8th January, 2020

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

Heard Mr Ghute Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶12

Grievance of the petitioner is non compliance of the order of this Court dated 06.08.2019 insptie of representations submitted to the authority. By order dated 06.08.2019, the Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on verification of the documents within stipulated period of two months.

¶13

Perusal of the representations placed on record show that though the petitioner refers to the order of this Court dated 06.08.2019, he concludes his representation with a request to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Ghute Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was fair enough to submit that this concluding para of the representation is clearly an error and

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

mistake of the petitioner and this Court had not directed the authorities to issue appointment order and only directed to consider the claim of the petitioner with regard to the appointment of the petitioenr on verification of the documents.

¶16

True it is that representations are not haply worded, the fact remains of non decision on the claim of the petitioner. Considering this very fact, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the contempt petition with directions to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to decide the claim of the petitioner on verification of the documents, needless to state, on merits as well as on the backdrop of the observations of the Division Bench in the order dated 06.08.2019, within four weeks from today, without fail.

¶17

Contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶18

Authenticated copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner to submit the authenticated copy of the order to respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶19

(ANIL S. KILOR, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶20

JPC

¶21

Page 2 of 2

Santosh Popat Survase v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Popat Survase 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

Navalbhau Pratishthan Naval Nagar Dhule and Another Vs Sitaram Janadhan Kunte

Kalpana Valmik Shirsath Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Manohar Dattatraya Shringare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shree Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi Throughi Its Chief Executive Officer Deepak Madhukarrao Muglikar Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Others

Kailas Ramdas Dheple and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Maharashtra Rajya Shikshak Sena through Its President D a Pawar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others