Sunil Tukaram Jagtap v. Sanjay Krishnarao Taksande, Regional Director , Mah. State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and or

Bombay HC1 Feb 2023PIL/4/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench disposed PIL No.4 of 2020 and associated interim application holding the original cause of action infructuous due to change in employer and designation of the pleada against, dismissing amendment request..

What did the court decide?

PIL and Interim Application disposed. Petitioner may take permissible proceedings. All contentions kept open. No costs.

Sunil Tukaram Jagtap Vs Sanjay Krishnarao… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

k 1/3 20 pil 4.20 as.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.4 OF 2020 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.17167 OF 2022 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.4 OF 2020

¶4

Sunil Tukaram Jagtap V/S

¶5

Sanjay Krishnarao Taksande & Ors.

¶6

....Petitioner/Applicant

¶7

....Respondents

¶8

Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni for the Petitioner/Applicant. Mr. G.S. Godbole a/w Mr. A.R. Gole for Respondent No.1. Mr. Hrishikesh Chavan for Respondent No.2-MSEB.

¶9

Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate and Mr. Kiran Gavellkar i/b M/s. Little & Co. for Respondent No.4-MSEDCL.

¶10

Mr. P.P. Kakade, GP a/w Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 7-State.

¶11

Mr. Abhijit Joshi for Respondent Nos.5 and 6-MSETCL.

¶12

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 1^st FEBRUARY 2023.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1 We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner/Applicant and

¶15

the learned Advocates for the respective Respondents.

¶16

2 The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner

¶17

has filed Interim Application for amendment in view of the subsequent

¶18

1/3

¶19

k 2/3 20 pil 4.20 as.doc

¶20

development. He submits that the Petitioner had challenged the appointment of Respondent No.1 initially with Respondent No.5. The tenure of Respondent No.1 with Respondent No.5 is over. Fresh selection process was conducted by Respondent No.4 in which Respondent No.1 is selected as Director (Operations). The same is also against the rules. The rules require that a person with impeccable past history can be considered. The Respondent No.1 does not fit into it.

¶21

3 The learned Advocate for the Respondent submits that the fresh appointment is by another employer, the cause of action of the Writ Petition now does not subsist. In view of that in a Writ Petition, for which the cause of action does subsist, amendment may not be allowed.

¶22

4 It is not disputed by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that when the PIL was filed Petitioner was seeking writ of quo warranto qua appointment of Respondent No.1 by Respondent No.5. The tenure of Respondent No.1 with Respondent No.5 is over. Respondent No.4 conducted fresh selection process and has selected Respondent No.1 as Director (Operations). The same would be a completely fresh cause of action as the employer and the designation has changed.

¶23

5 In light of above, as the relief in the original Writ Petition itself has become infructuous, it would be improper to consider the present

¶24

2/3

¶25

k 3/3 20 pil 4.20 as.doc

¶26

Application for amendment. It is for the Petitioner to take appropriate steps by filing proceedings as may be maintainable.

¶27

6 In light of above, the PIL and Interim Application stands disposed of. The Petitioner may take proceedings as may be permissible under law. In that event all contentions of the Petitioner as well as respective Respondents are kept open. No costs.

¶28

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶29

(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶30

Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM RAJALINGAM KATKAM KATKAM Date: 2023.02.04 10:27:34 +0530

¶31

3/3

Sunil Tukaram Jagtap v. Sanjay Krishnarao Taksande, Regional Director , Mah. State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and or

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Tukaram Jagtap v. Sanjay Krishnarao Taksande, Regional Director , Mah. State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and or

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaibhavpadmakar Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sidheshwar Maogalppa Kamurti Vs the Bhiwandi Group Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Soc. Ltd. Thr Chairman and Ors.

Shaikh Afsar Shaikh Yasin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vilas Kailas Pawara vs the State of Maharashtra Public Works Department through Its Chief Secretary and Others

Premeya Welfare Foundation vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Kamal Jagdish Singh vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

Shiva Akhil Bhartiya Virshaiva Yuvak Sanghatna through Its Founder National President Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kishor Mansukhani and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shubham Sanjay Tilekar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Amit Samadhan Palwe Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Dist Comp Ltd. Thr Its Chairman and Managing Director and Ors.

Kalyan Bagade Vs Union of India Thr. Ministry of Railways and Ors.

Azam Aslam Tamboli Vs the Chief Officer and Anr.

Shri. B. N. Chauhan Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Dhq and Ors.

Kishor S/O Kantilal Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary Agriculture Animal Hunsbandry and Ors.