Dismissed

Anil Ramchandra Chandak v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Sept 2021WP/5770/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Through a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a direction for the General Body of Rotary Club of North Solapur to hear a pending appeal regarding his membership termination. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not maintainable against a private entity not performing a public duty.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable against the private respondent.

Anil Ramchandra Chandak Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2021)

4 wp 5770-21-c

Priya Soparkar

PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR

¶5

Digitally signed by PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR Date: 2021.09.23 13:36:39 +0530

¶6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.5770 OF 2021

¶8

Anil Ramchandra Chandak … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and anr. … Respondents ---

¶9

Mr.Prasad Pradeep Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.S.L.Babar, AGP for Respondent No.1/State.

¶10

CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2021.

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

Heard Mr.Prasad Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr.S.L.Babar, learned AGP for respondent No.1.

¶13

By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to respondent No.2 to hear and dispose of his appeal which is stated to be pending since 11^th July, 2021.

¶14

Respondent No.2 is the General Body of Rotary Club of North Solapur, Solapur.

¶15

Petitioner claims to be a member of Rotary Club of Solapur (North). One complaint was 8led against him by a member which was forwarded by the President of the Rotary Club to the petitioner. Petitioner responded to the complaint by 8ling reply. However, on 29^th June, 2021 membership of the petitioner in Rotary Club of Solapur (North) was terminated. Against such termination of membership petitioner had 8led appeal before respondent No.2

¶16

Priya Soparkar 2 4 wp 5770-21-c

¶17

i.e. General Body of Rotary Club of North Solapur. Grievance of the petitioner is that though the appeal was 8led on 11^th July, 2021, it has not yet been taken up for consideration.

¶18

At the outset, we fail to understand as to how a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the Rotary Club or against the General Body of Rotary Club which are purely private entities. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in The Praga Toors Corporation Vs. Shri C.A.Imanual, 1969(1) SCC 585 to contend that the words "any person or authority" used in Article 226 should not be con8ned only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. We are afraid contention of the petitioner is misplaced. Prima facie it cannot be said that Rotary Club or its General Body are engaged in performing public duty.

¶19

In the circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of maintainability.

¶20

7. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶21

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.)

Anil Ramchandra Chandak v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Ramchandra Chandak v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Sakharam Parbalkar Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Xyz Thr Hr Legal Guardian Santosh Vaijinath Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Public Health Dept. and Ors.

Vishal S/O. Gajendra Surwase and Ors. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

M/S. Jubilant Industries Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Home (State Excise) Dept and Ors.

Akshata Ankur Gurav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Molecular Pathlabs LLP Thr. Partner Dr. Dishita Budhalani Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Commissioner of Health Services