Dismissed

Rohidas Ramesh Shinde v. the State of Mah. Thru the Secretary, Social Welfare Dept. , Mantralaya and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2021CAI/1/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application was filed to recall a prior order disposing of a PIL alleging fund diversion for CCTV cameras under the Caste Upay Yogna scheme. The application was dismissed for lack of material adduced by the petitioner to support the recall petition.

What did the court decide?

Application for recall of the order dated April 18, 2019, dismissed.

Rohidas Ramesh Shinde Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

22-CAI-1-2021

¶2

Pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLCIATION NO. 1 OF 2021 IN

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 154 OF 2018

¶6

Rohidas Ramesh Shinde .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Rahul B. Vijaymane for petitioner.

¶10

Mr. M. M. Pable, AGP for State.

¶11

Mr. Vinod P. Sangvikar a/w Ms. Vaishnavi Gholare for respondent no.6.

¶12

C0RAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & G. S. KULKARNI, J.

¶13

DATE : OCTOBER 4, 2021

¶14

PC :

¶15

Public Interest Litigation No. 154 of 2018 was disposed of by an order dated April 18, 2019 of a coordinate Bench of this Court. The petitioner was not represented before the Bench on that date. He has, accordingly, prayed for recall of such order and for restoration of the writ petition to its original file and number for fresh hearing thereof.

¶16

The writ petition was instituted alleging that funds sanctioned for installation of CCTV cameras under the Schedule

¶17

¶18

22-CAI-1-2021

¶19

Caste Upay Yogna (Veshesh Gatak Yojana) for the year 20172018 are likely to be diverted and used for purposes other than the purpose for which the same were sanctioned. The coordinate Bench recorded that there was no material on the basis of which a conclusion could be reached that funds are likely to be diverted.

¶20

We requested Mr. Vijaymane, learned advocate for the petitioner, to show from the petition the materials on the basis of which the writ petition was instituted. Regrettably, no such material is brought to our notice. We, thus, do not see reason to recall the order dated April 18, 2019.

¶21

The application for recall stands dismissed, without costs.

¶22

We, however, observe that if the petitioner is able to gather relevant material for the purpose of supporting his case, he shall be at liberty to file a fresh writ petition.

¶23

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶24

Digitally
signed byPRAVIN
PRAVIN DASHARATH
DASHARATH PANDIT
PANDIT Date:
2021.10.05
10:15:05
+0530

¶25

Rohidas Ramesh Shinde v. the State of Mah. Thru the Secretary, Social Welfare Dept. , Mantralaya and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohidas Ramesh Shinde v. the State of Mah. Thru the Secretary, Social Welfare Dept. , Mantralaya and 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

Smita Ambalal Patel and 14 Ors. Vs the Maharashtra State Co-Operative Appellate Court No. 1 Mumbai

Jalindar Tukaram Kharat Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jalindar Tukaram Kharat Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tribal Doctors Forum and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Commissioner and Competent Auth. State Cet Cell, Mumbai and Anr.

Rohidas Ramesh Shinde Vs the State of Mah. Thru the Secretary, Social Welfare Dept. , Mantralaya and Ors.

Paints Employees Union Vs Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. and Another