Dismissed

Narayan Shankar Solanki v. the State of Maharashtra,Thr. Its Secretary,Rural Development Dept. and Another

Bombay HC5 Mar 2021WP/1123/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition for a mandamus directing the Chief Executive Officer to decide a transfer representation within a time-bound period, holding that no case was made out for issuance without evidence of unjustifiable delay or failure to perform public duty. Costs were imposed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to pay costs of Rs. 5,000 to the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur within four weeks.

Narayan Shankar Solanki Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

909wp 1123.2021.edited.doc

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

Writ Petition No. 1123/2021

¶5

Narayan Shankar Solanki …Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and anr.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Shri G.O. Gadge h/f. Shri P.S. Kshirsagar, Advocates for the Petitioner Mrs. K. R. Deshpande, AGP for the Respondent No. 1- State

¶10

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

¶11

DATED : 05 MARCH 2021

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

This is one more Petition where a direction sought to the Respondent No.2–Chief Executive Officer to decide the representation as the only relief.

¶14

Again, it is a case of representation regarding the transfer of the Petitioner from one place to another. The representation was filed on 12 November 2020, and immediately this Writ Petition is filed in the second week of January 2021 for a writ of mandamus to direct Respondent No.2–Chief Executive Officer to decide the representation within a time-bound period. We have come across a series of such petitions, forming a pattern, and, therefore, it has become necessary to take a serious note.

¶15

SMGate

¶16

2 909wp 1123.2021.edited.doc

¶17

A writ of mandamus would be issued if there is a failure to perform a public duty cast upon the public authority. This prerogative writ cannot be sought in a routine and mechanical manner. For seeking a simpliciter direction to decide a representation, the Petitioner will have to establish that for unjustifiable reasons and for an unreasonable period, the Respondent-Authority has failed to act. The Court also is required to examine the nature of the right claimed in the representation. For instance, if it is a case of personal liberties, a different yardstick would be applicable.

¶18

Present case is of the representation for transfer of the Petitioner. This is an administrative matter for the Respondent to consider. It cannot be that a request is made for transfer and immediately without giving reasonable time to the authority; writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to direct time-bound disposal of the request with no other substantive relief, in a routine and mechanical manner. Unfortunately, a large number of such petitions are being filed.

¶19

It is necessary to discourage the filing of such matters, by imposing costs. For such matters clog up the already burdened docket of this Court and cut into the limited judicial time available, which can be invested for those genuinely and urgently in need of judicial intervention.

¶20

No case is made out for the issuance of mandamus. The representation will be decided as per the time schedule available to the Respondents.

¶21

The Writ Petition is rejected.

¶22

SMGate

¶23

909wp 1123.2021.edited.doc

¶24

¶25

The Petitioner will pay a costs of Rs.5,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur, within four weeks.

¶26

[ANIL S. KILOR, J.] [NITIN JAMDAR, J.]

¶27

SMGate

Narayan Shankar Solanki v. the State of Maharashtra,Thr. Its Secretary,Rural Development Dept. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Shankar Solanki v. the State of Maharashtra,Thr. Its Secretary,Rural Development Dept. 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

Shailesh Pundlik Meshram Vs Union of India, Thr. Secreatary, to the Govt. of India,Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue and Ot

Vishal Rameshrao Malode Vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue and Othe

Prashant Tukaram Dharkar Vs Union of India, Thr. Sec. Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue and Others

Ku. Ranjana D/O Tulshiramji Dharmale Vs the Yeoda Education Society, through Its Secretary, Amravati and Another

Pitruchaya Bahudeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, through Joint Secretary Rajendra M. Bhaisare Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Vasan Wines, through Its Proprietor, Ashok S/O Lakharam Vanjani Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary (State Excise), Mumbai