Disposed

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Nagpur through Secretary Shri Vijay Patil v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Home, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC22 Feb 2021WP/1042/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a rejection of permission to hold a protest. The court held that details on participant numbers and social distancing were missing, and the petitioner agreed to defer and resubmit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner agreed to defer protest and make an application with details; Writ Petition disposed.

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Nagpur through… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

2wp 1042.2021.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

Writ Petition No. 1042/2021

¶5

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena …Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Shri A.R. Ingole, Advocate for the Petitioner Mrs. K.S. Joshi, Incharge GP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - State

¶10

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 22 FEBRUARY 2021

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Not on Board. Take on Production Board.

¶14

The Petitioner-Union is aggrieved by the order dated 18 February 2021 passed by the Respondent No. 3 rejecting the permission to the Petitioner-Union to hold a protest on 23 February 2021 at 12.00 noon at Samvidhan Square, Nagpur.

¶15

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Union states that the Petitioner-Union which represents the contract employees working with the I.S.G.E.C. Heavy Engineering Company Ltd., Koradi, Nagpur is organizing a protest in respect of termination of 45 employees on 03 February 2021. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Union states that

¶16

SMGate

¶17

2 2wp 1042.2021.odt

¶18

such right is a fundamental right of freedom of expression. The learned Counsel further submits that the Petitioner-Union is ready to abide by norms in respect of social distancing in view of the Covid-19 Pandemic.

¶19

The learned Incharge G.P. points out that there are no particulars either in an Application nor in the Petition as to how many number of people/employees would gather, which is crucial for the purpose of preventing further outbreak of the Covid-19 Pandemic.

¶20

In the Application submitted by the Petitioner-Union, there are no particulars whatsoever and the Petitioner-Union has not stated exactly how many members/employees would gather; whether any system of issuing passes is going to be followed by the Petitioner; in what manner social distancing norms would be observed. Unless, the aforesaid information are placed in the Application, it will not be possible for the Respondent No. 3 to take a decision, as to whether to permit such a protest or otherwise.

¶21

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner-Union will accordingly defer the date of protest and make an Application giving details to the Respondent No. 3.

¶22

In view of this stand of the Petitioner, Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶23

[ANIL S. KILOR, J.]

¶24

[NITIN JAMDAR, J.]

¶25

SMGate

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Nagpur through Secretary Shri Vijay Patil v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Home, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Nagpur through Secretary Shri Vijay Patil v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Home, Mumbai 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

Smt. Girja W/O Sajjan Dhurve and Another Vs the State of Maha. Thr. Secretary for Rural Development and Water Conservation Dep. Mumbai and Othe

Sarlabai Narayandasji Sikchi Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Urban Developent Department, Mumbai and Others

Sukhadev S/O. Rajaram Shejul Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Chief Secretary, Dept. of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Others

Rakesh S/O Bhaiyyaji Khunkar Vs Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Nagpur Thr. Managing Director and Another

Union of India Thru. Secty. and 4 Ors. Vs Dr. Suresh Kumar Chellani (Dead) Thr Lrs Barkha Chellani and Another

Satish S/O Dhanbahadur Thakur and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Mumbai and Others