Dismissed

Tanaji Narayan Kolekar v. Mrunalini Milind Fadnavis and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Apr 2022WP/3981/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner's writ petition was prematurely filed because the University had yet to decide on the Committee's salary recommendations. The claim for a restraining order was dismissed as baseless, and the petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the Court upon a fresh cause of action.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as prematurely filed; restraining order claim dismissed as baseless; liberty granted to approach Court on fresh cause of action.

Tanaji Narayan Kolekar Vs Mrunalini Milind Fadnavis… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

WP 3981.22.doc

¶2

¶3

JPP

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3981 OF 2022

¶6

Dr. Tanaji Narayan Kolekar

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

V/s.

¶9

Punyashlok Abhilyadevi Holkar Solapur University, Solapur and Anr.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Mr. Milind Deshmukh for the Petitioner

¶12

Mr. R.M. Haridas i/b. Mr. P.P. Kulkarni for Respondent No.2 Mr. N.C. Walimbe, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6

¶13

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & G.A. SANAP, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 8 APRIL 2022

¶15

P.C. :-

¶16

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and the learned AGP for the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

¶17

Perused the report dated 21 March 2022 placed before us by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2. The report is taken on record and it is marked ‘A’ for identification. On going

¶18

WP 3981.22.doc

¶19

¶20

through this report, we find that the recommendations have been made by the Committee regarding fixation of the dates from which the salary benefits be given to the Petitioner. In this Petition, the Petitioner is mainly aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the University in not fixing the dates from which the salary benefits are to be made available. The University has not so far taken any decision upon the recommendations made to it by the Committee in this regard. Therefore, till an appropriate decision is taken by the Competent Authority, the Petitioner would have no cause of action to approach this Court. Therefore, we find that this Petition has been prematurely filed.

¶21

The Petitioner has also sought a restraining order from this Court so as to prohibit the Respondent No.1 from acting beyond her jurisdiction and authority by initiating any high handed action against the Petitioner. The relief so claimed is without any basis to say the least and therefore, so far as this relief is concerned, it deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

¶22

The relief claimed in prayer clause (b) is about fixation of the dates from which the salary benefits are to be made available to the Petitioner, and, we have already found that the Petition has been prematurely filed, so far as this relief is concerned.

¶23

WP 3981.22.doc

¶24

¶25

Accordingly, the Petition is also dismissed as regards prayer clause (b) but with liberty to the Petitioner to approach this Court if there is any fresh cause of action. All questions are kept open with further liberty to the Petitioner to take recourse to such appropriate remedy as may be available in law.

¶26

G.A. SANAP, J. SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.

¶27

JYOTI Digitally signedby JYOTI PRAKASH PRAKASH PAWAR PAWAR Date: 2022.04.1216:22:34 +0530

Tanaji Narayan Kolekar v. Mrunalini Milind Fadnavis and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanaji Narayan Kolekar v. Mrunalini Milind Fadnavis and Ors.

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

All India Medical Students Welfare Forum and Anr. Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Vishal Prakash Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Dr. Kailash Kashinathrao Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary Public Health Dept and Ors.

Ansari Ahmed Mohammed Yusuf Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Mansi Ramchandra Dongare Vs Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu Thr. Dept of Administration and Ors.

Ms. Pinky B. Japee Vs Shri. Vile Parle Kelavani Mandal Thru Secretary/ President and Ors.