Disposed

Khan Maseera Firdose Khan Riyaz Ahmed v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC2 Feb 2021WP/416/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a student of the respondent institution, sought to quash a notice regarding alleged false cheques and non-payment of fees. The court observed that the document was a show cause notice, not a final order, and directed the institution to provide an audience for explanation before taking any decision.

What did the court decide?

Communication dated 16/01/2021 clarified as show cause notice; order to institution to provide audience and allow written explanation before taking final decision.

Khan Maseera Firdose Khan Riyaz Ahmed Vs State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

02.02 wp416 of 2021.odt

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.416 OF 2021

¶5

Khan Maseera Firdose Khan Riyaz Ahmed … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra and others … Respondents

¶8

Mr. A.J. Kadu, Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. Kalyani Deshpande, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr. Abhijit Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. N.R. Saboo, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶9

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & ANIL S. KILOR, JJ DATE : 2 FEBRUARY 2021

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

The Petitioner, who was a student of the Respondent No.4- College run by the Respondent No.3- Institution, has filed this Petition for the following relief :

¶12

“1. Issue appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the letter dated 16/01/2021 ANNEXURE-XI issued by respondent no.4 Principal, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Institute of Homeopathic Medical Sciences, Amravati in the interest of justice.”

¶13

¶14

02.02 wp416 of 2021.odt

¶15

We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties.

¶16

The communication dated 16 January 2021 refers to the two cheques issued by the Petitioner on 13 November 2017 and 30 March 2020. It is stated that the Petitioner deliberately gave the false and fabricated cheques and misled the Respondent No.3Institution, as the cheques were dishonoured. It is stated that the Petitioner did not pay the fees and did not take the admission in the Respondent No.4- College after the results of the Second Year was declared.

¶17

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had no such communication and the Petitioner was not communicated the fact of dishonour and whenever it was so communicated, the Petitioner has paid the amount. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3- Institution submitted that the communication dated 16 January 2021 is not the final order, but only a show cause notice and if the Petitioner chooses to file the explanation, the same will be considered before taking any final action.

¶18

In these circumstances, it is not necessary for us to adjudicate the rival contentions on merits. It is clarified that the communication dated 16 January 2021 is a show cause notice. The statements made therein would be considered as imputations against the Petitioner, which the Petitioner will be entitled to rebut by filing his response. Considering the fact that the Petitioner is a

¶19

¶20

02.02 wp416 of 2021.odt

¶21

student, the Respondent No.3- Institution will give audience to the Petitioner along with her father to explain the position. The Petitioner will first submit her written explanation within a period of one week. Thereafter, the Respondent No.3- Institution will call the Petitioner for an interaction and take a decision within a period of one week.

¶22

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶23

(ANIL S. KILOR, J) (NITIN JAMDAR, J)

¶24

Lanjewar

¶25

Prashant Lanjewar

¶26

Digitally signed by Prashant Lanjewar Date: 2021.02.05 11:28:26 +0530

Khan Maseera Firdose Khan Riyaz Ahmed v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khan Maseera Firdose Khan Riyaz Ahmed v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hafiz Mohammad Zamir S/O Abdul Aziz Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati and Others

Mohd. Azhar Nakeeb S/O Wasim Akhtar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Town Planing Department, Mumbaia and 5 Others

Shri. Sushil S/O Ramdas Bakade Vs the Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thr.Member Secretary and Others

Shyamsundar S/O Shankarrao Shinde Vs the District Caste Scrutiny Committee, through Its Member Secretary, Bhandara

Kirtikumar Ramniklal Vora Vs the Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Napgur and Others

S.B. and Company, Thr. Its Partner Barshi Ahemad S/O Mohd. Sharif Qureshi Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Department of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Others