Partly allowed

Satish Eknath Majoke v. the Chief Conservator of Forests , Van Vrutta and Another

Bombay HC17 Jan 2020WP/7468/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No.7468/2019, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, considered a petition for reinstatement on the post of Forest Guard. Observing that the case involves service matters where the petitioner has a remedy in the Administrative Tribunal, the court permitted withdrawal with liberty to approach that forum. No substantive order on the merits or under any statute was pro

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.

Satish Eknath Majoke Vs the Chief Conservator of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

1 913.WP7468.19.odt

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.7468/2019

¶4

Satish Eknath Majoke Vs. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Chandrapur and another.

¶5

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

¶6

........................................................................................................................................…...
Shri R. S. Parsodkar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶7

Shri S. Y. Deopujari, Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1
and 2.

¶8

CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE &

¶9

A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ. DATED : 17^th JANUARY, 2020.

¶10

.The matter pertains to reinstatement or
restoring the service of the petitioner on the post of Forest
Guard. The petition neither challenges any order of the
Scrutiny Committee nor claims any protection in respect of
it. The petitioner has a remedy of approaching the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.

¶11

2.Hence, we permit the petitioner to withdraw
this petition with liberty to approach the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal.

¶12

3.All questions are left open.

¶13

JUDGEJUDGE

¶14

RGurnule

Satish Eknath Majoke v. the Chief Conservator of Forests , Van Vrutta and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Eknath Majoke v. the Chief Conservator of Forests , Van Vrutta and Another

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

Hbt Security Force, Nagpur through Prop. Mohammad Ruhul Amin Qureshi Vs State of Maharashtra, Minorities Development Department, Mumbai through Secretary and Others

Mahila Arthik Vikas Bachat Gut, through Its President, Smt. Karuna W/O Krishnarao Chimankar Vs the State of Maharashtra,through Its Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Mumbai and

Vidharbha Processing and Marketing Cooperative Society, through Manager, Shri Babarao Daryaji Lothe Vs the Collector, Washim

Jaiswal Infrastructure, Nagpur through Its Proprietor, Rajendra Jaiswal Vs Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Gst, Nagpur and Another

Sau. Sandhya Vijay Gadbail Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary of Rural Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Badriprasadji Jaiswal and Others Vs the Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur Thr. Rregistrar and Others