Dismissed

Santosh Samadhan Sawarkar v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Govt. of Maha. Education and Sports Dept.

Bombay HC4 May 2022PIL/19/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a state government resolution granting amnesty for sports quota appointments. The court noted the petitioner lacked a valid Sports Validity Certificate and thus had no standing. The petition was dismissed without prejudice, leaving the matter open for a genuine representative to challenge the resolution.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of keeping the question open for a genuine representative to challenge the resolution.

Santosh Samadhan Sawarkar Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1 / 3 2-PIL-19-2022

¶2

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

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 19 OF 2022

¶4

Santosh Samadhan Sawarkar -- Petitioner/s Vs.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. -- Respondent/s

¶6

Mr. M.M. Sudame, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Shamsi Haider, A.G.P. for the Respondents/ State.

¶7

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ. DATE : 4 MAY 2022

¶8

P. C. :

¶9

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶10

This public interest litigation seeks to question the amnesty declared by the State of Maharashtra through the Government Resolution dated 23 February 2022.

¶11

The State of Maharashtra has taken note of the fact that many persons are appointed in sport quota on the basis of the Sports Validity Certificates, which could be bogus. The Government Resolution makes a distinction between the two; those who are appointed on the basis of such certificates and those who are not yet appointed. The Petitioner seeks to take exception to clause (2), which is the policy of the State Government on the

¶12

SUMIT

¶13

2 / 3 2-PIL-19-2022

¶14

ground that such amnesty would benefit those who have committed wrong, and will be against the genuine sportsperson seeking appointment in the Government service.

¶15

Before we proceed further to take cognizance, we have to examine the credentials of the Petitioner, more particularly in light of the implications of the reliefs sought for by the Petitioner, which would affect large number of persons.

¶16

The Petitioner has projected himself as ‘Sportsperson’. Therefore, it is the case of the Petitioner that such amnesty scheme would be against the genuine sportsperson. The Petitioner has stated that the Petitioner is working in a private Bank.

¶17

The format of Sports Validity Certificates is provided in the Government Resolution dated 1 July 2016. Sports Validity Certificate for National, State and District level competitions are signed by the Deputy Director of Sports and Youth Services. Such certificate would be then considered as valid under the Government Resolution dated 1 July 2016.

¶18

In the petition, the certificates annexed by the Petitioner, claiming to be genuine sportsperson do not contain such endorsement. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner admits that the Petitioner has no further documents. If the Petitioner’s Sports Validity Certificate itself is not in conformity with the Government Resolution dated 1 July 2016, the Petitioner would

¶19

SUMIT

¶20

3 / 3 2-PIL-19-2022

¶21

then fall in the class which the Petitioner himself complains has been unduly favoured by the State.

¶22

Such being the position of the Petitioner, he cannot be placed on the pedestal akin to an amicus. Therefore, we are not inclined to proceed further in this extraordinary jurisdiction at the behest of this Petitioner.

¶23

As and when a cause is brought by those who would be having genuine Sports Validity Certificate, as representing the cause of that class who would be affected by the Government Resolution, the Court may consider taking the matter forward.

¶24

With these observations, keeping the question open, we dispose of this public interest litigation.

¶25

Digitally signed bySUMIT CHETAN AGRAWAL Signing Date:06.05.2022 17:12

¶26

SUMIT

Santosh Samadhan Sawarkar v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Govt. of Maha. Education and Sports Dept.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Samadhan Sawarkar v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Govt. of Maha. Education and Sports Dept.

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

Kailash Hari Patil Vice President Agri Sena Vs the Chief Secretary, the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Adv. Firoz Babulal Sayyed Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Virbhadra Basling Swami Vs Chief Secretory, the State of Maharashtra, Mumbai and Others

Hrishikesh Laxman Kolhe Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Rajendra Kisan Landge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prashant Achyutrao Lomate and Another Vs the Union of India and Others

Audambar Shiv Shrushti Samiti Thr. Member, Sudhakar Yashvantrao Lomate, Yavatmal Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Bapu Shankar Dikhe and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sau. Archana W/O Vijay Parchake (Ku. Archana D/O Anandrao Atram) Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Chief Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Chanda W/O Madhukar Tekade and Others Vs Principal Secretary, Home (Excise Department), State of Maha., Mumbai and Others

Mast. Sai S/O Amol Borhade, Thr. Legal Guardian, Amol S/O Chandrabhan Borhade Vs Sainik School Society, Board of Governers, Thr. Secretary Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and Anr.

Gayatri Mahila Bachat Gat Thr. Its Secretary, Vandana Rajendra Padole Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, School Education and Sports, Mumbai and Others

Natthu S/O Chindhu Wankhede and Others Vs the State of Maha. Thr. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (Kanholi Nala Project), Nagpur and Anr.

Kavindra S/O Patruji Rohankar Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Maharashtra Forest Dept., Mumbai and Others