Dismissed

Spark Healthline Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Duly Aut. Sign., Jyoti Badoni v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 9 Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jul 2021CA/8/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ challenging Lokayukta recommendations. Clarification that prosecution was sought only against an individual, not the Petitioner-Company, removed the grievance, leading to dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The Petition and Civil Application No. 8/2021 were disposed of on the ground that the clarification absolved the Petitioner-Company.

Spark Healthline Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

 Santosh

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.79 OF 2021
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8 OF 2021

¶5

SPARK HEALTHLINE PVT.
LTD., THR. ITS DULY AUT.
SIGN., JYOTI BADONI…Petitioner
 VERSUS
STATE OF GOA, THR. ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY AND 9 ORS …..Respondents.

¶6

Mr. Shashikant Narayan Joshi, with Ms. Snehal Rawool, Advocates
for the Petitioner.

¶7

Ms. Maria Simon Correia, Addl. Govt. Advocate for Respondent
No.1.

¶8

Mr. H.D. Naik, Advocate for Respondents No. 8,9 and 10.

¶9

Coram : M.S. Sonak, J.

¶10

 Date : 13th July, 2021.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

2. The challenge in this Petition is to the report/
recommendations dated 14th September, 2020 of the Hon'ble
Lokayukta.

¶14

3. The Petitioner was impleaded as Respondent No.8 in
Proceedings No.26/2019 before the Hon'ble Lokayukta. The record
indicates that the first notice with the returnable date 7/7/2020, was

¶15

¶16

served on the registered office of the Petitioner-Company on
9/7/2020. Thereafter, the Petitioner by letter dated 5/8/2020,
requested that the proceedings be taken up after pandemic situation
improves. The letter points out that the Petitioner will not be able to
attend the proceedings on account of the pandemic situation.

¶17

4.Despite application dated 5/8/2020, the Hon'ble Lokayukta
has made the order/recommendations dated 14th September, 2020 :

¶18

“1. Appropriate criminal prosecution should be launched
against Respondent No.2, 3, and others.

¶19

2.Appropriate departmental proceeding should be initiated
against Respondent No.3 and 4. Law is clear that there can
be simultaneous disciplinary proceeding even during
pendency of a criminal case.

¶20

3.Whether Respondent No. 3 and 4 should be suspended pending disciplinary proceeding is left to the discretion of the appropriate authority.

¶21

4. It is hereby declared under Section 16.A that
Respondent No.1 should not continue to hold the office
held by him.”

¶22

5.Now, the perusal of the aforesaid recommendations,
indicates that there is no specific recommendation made against the
Petitioner herein. However, Mr. Joshi submits that the first
recommendation of launching appropriate criminal prosecution is
against “Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and others”. He submits that there is a

¶23

¶24

possibility that the Petitioner will be included amongst the “others”.
Hence, the present Petition.

¶25

6.Mr. H.D. Naik, the learned Counsel for Respondents No.8,
9 and 10, the original complainants before the Hon'ble Lokayukta,
states that the grievance of the said Respondents was mainly against
Dr. Benoy Berry, the so called Managing Director of the Petitioner
Company. He submits that the Respondents/complainants will not
have any objection if it is clarified that they had not pressed
launching of any criminal prosecution against the Petitioner-
Company.

¶26

7.Accordingly, it is clarified that the first recommendation
does not concern launching of any criminal prosecution against the
Petitioner-Company, though, the same will concern launching of
criminal prosecution against Dr. Binoy Berry.

¶27

8.With the aforesaid clarification, the grievance of the
Petitioner in the present Petition does not survive. The Petition is,
accordingly, disposed of.

¶28

9.Civil Application No.8/2021 does not survive and the same
is also disposed of.

¶29

 M.S. Sonak, J.

¶30

SANTOSH S MHAMAL Digitally signed by SANTOSH S MHAMAL Date: 2021.07.15 10:57:33 +05'30'

Spark Healthline Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Duly Aut. Sign., Jyoti Badoni v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Spark Healthline Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Duly Aut. Sign., Jyoti Badoni v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 9 Ors.

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

Sofia Shabnam., Vs Village Panchayat of Salvador-Do-Mundo, Rep. by Its Secretary.

Netra Sandeep Mahale Vs the President, Shri Shantadurga Devasthan, Marcela and Anr.

Ashok Kumar and Anr. Vs Parasnath Singh and 6 Ors.

Wilbur Ticlo and Anr., Vs Pravinkumar Bhomchand Jain and 2 Ors.

Spark Healthline Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Duly Aut. Sign., Jyoti Badoni Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 9 Ors.

Sakshi Krishnanath Gosavi., Vs Krishna Marutinath Gosavi.