Dismissed

Centre for Legislative Advocacyan Initiative by Sahayog Trust Thr. Founder Adv. a. S. Sarode and an v. State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Law and Judiciary Ministry, Govt. of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Jan 2021PIL/27/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL challenging the need for monthly payments and a permanent stipend scheme for junior advocates. The Court notes courts resumed functioning post-lockdown, finds no current data supporting the need, and dismisses the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of leaving it open to Petitioner to move Court with data regarding changed situation.

Centre for Legislative Advocacyan Initiative by… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 950-pil-27-20 (new).odt

¶2

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

¶3

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 27 of 2020

¶4

Centre for Legislative Advocacy an Initiative By Sahayog Trust through Founder Adv. A.S. Sarode and another …Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Law and Judiciary Ministry, Government of Maharashtra and others

¶7

...Respondent/s

¶8

Mrs. Smita Singalkar, Advocate for the Petitioners Shri A.M. Deshpande, AGP for the Respondent - State

¶9

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. DATED : 27 JANUARY 2021

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

The Petitioners have sought a direction to the RespondentState of Maharashtra and Maharashtra Advocate Welfare Fund Trustee Committee and Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for payment of Rs.10,000/- per month to lawyers with less than three years of practice and also for permanent stipend scheme for those lawyers, who are in requirement of the assistance.

¶12

The foundation of this Public Interest Litigation filed in the month of May 2020 was the situation brought about by the nationwide lock-down due to Covid-19 pandemic. Due to the lock-down, the regular Court functioning was curtailed. This caused hardship to the advocates,

¶13

SKNair

¶14

2 950-pil-27-20 (new).odt

¶15

especially the junior advocates, whose cause the Petitioners have sought to espouse. Though there are other reliefs sought, what prompted the Petitioners to move this Court in public interest is the situation brought about by the lock-down.

¶16

Now the Courts have resumed full-fledged functioning and the grave situation pandemic does not exist, as far as advocates are concerned, with the same rigor as earlier. The Petitioner therefore will have to place on record specifics as to even after resumption of the regular hearing of the Courts, the prayers as sought for still need to be granted. Even for the remaining prayers, no data is placed except the narration of situation during the pandemic. For espousing such causes, research needs to be done backed by tangible data and particulars.

¶17

The Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the Petitioner to move the Court placing the data before the Court, in the context of the changed situation.

¶18

[ANIL S. KILOR, J.]

¶19

[NITIN JAMDAR, J.]

¶20

SKNair

Centre for Legislative Advocacyan Initiative by Sahayog Trust Thr. Founder Adv. a. S. Sarode and an v. State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Law and Judiciary Ministry, Govt. of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Centre for Legislative Advocacyan Initiative by Sahayog Trust Thr. Founder Adv. a. S. Sarode and an v. State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Law and Judiciary Ministry, Govt. of Maharashtra 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

Courts on Its Motion Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Department of Labour, Mumbai and 2 Others

Mahendrasing Premsing Jadhav and Anothers Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Milind Pralhad Bansode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Basavraj Shivaling Jibkate Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dr. Govind Hariba Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prerna Apang Seva Sanghatna through Its President L K Pokale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Hiralal Magan Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay S/O Omprakash Varma and Others Vs National Highway Authority of India, New Delhi through Chairman and Others

M/S. Suprabhat Family Restaurant and Saoji Bhojnalay, Nagpur Thr. Sudarshan S. Lohkarre and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, State Excise, Maharashtra State, Mumbai Thr. Secretary and Others

Ku. Alisha D/O Mahendra Pinjarkar and Another Vs Research Officer and Member Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee Amravati and Another

Nandgaon Khandeshwar Taluka Sahakari Shetki Kharedi Vikri Samiti Ltd. Thr. Presi. Vijay v. Patekar Vs District Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Amravati and Another

Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. Mumbai Vs Bhatia Coal Washeries Ltd. Indore

Ms. Pradnya Dnyaneshwar Patil Vs the District Superintending Agriculture Officer, Wardha and Others

Sublime Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. Nagpur through Director Shri Aavesh S/O Navalkishor Zunzunwala Vs State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Mumbai