Dismissed

Pallavi Chandrayya Aitwar through Power of Attorney Holder Chandrayya Ramkishtu Aitwar v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Bombay HC11 Oct 2023WP/12717/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In four combined writ petitions, petitioners challenged show cause notices regarding validity certificates. The Court refused to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 as the notices were belatedly approached after the petitioners participated in the enquiry without prior challenge.

What the court decided

AI extract

Pallavi Chandrayya Aitwar through Power… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

933, 936, 940 & 942.WP-12703-2023.doc

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

933 WRIT PETITION NO. 12703 OF 2023

¶6

SATYANARAYAN RAMREDDY AITWAR

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

¶9

AND

¶10

936 WRIT PETITION NO.12708 OF 2023

¶11

SONALI POCHANNA AITWAR THROUGH POA PRAVIN POCHANNA

¶12

AITWAR

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

¶15

940 WRIT PETITION NO.12714 OF 2023

¶16

SANDIP POCHANNA AITWAR THROUGH POA PRAVIN POCHANNA

¶17

AITWAR

¶18

VERSUS

¶19

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

¶20

942 WRIT PETITION NO.12717 OF 2023

¶21

PALLAVI CHANDRAYYA AITWAR THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER CHANDRAYYA RAMKISHTU AITWAR

¶22

VERSUS

¶23

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

¶24

Advocate for Petitioner in all petitions : Mr. Sunil Mahadevappa Vibhute
AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. S. G. Sangale

¶25

933, 936, 940 & 942.WP-12703-2023.doc

¶26

¶27

 CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
 SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
 DATE : 11 OCTOBER 2023

¶28

PER COURT :

¶29

.Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned AGP
in all these matters.

¶30

2.The petitioners have been served with show cause notices by the
respondent/Scrutiny Committee dated 23.10.2020 indicating therein
inter alia the circumstances which according to the Committee would
constitute fraud and would vitiate the validity certificates possessed by
them.

¶31

3.Though the learned Advocate for the petitioners by referring to
several decisions made submissions to demonstrate as to how the
Committee does not have jurisdiction and power to undertake the
exercise which it has intended to, we are only pointing out that the
show cause notices were served long back in the year 2020. The
petitioners seem to have participated in the enquiry. Even an
application raising the objections regarding maintainability was filed on
26.11.2021, which was rejected and the order of rejection was served to
one Rajeshwar Rajaram Aitwar, who is the first applicant in the array of
applicants as can be seen from the application submitted by them before
the Scrutiny Committee. Even that communication is dated 09.05.2022.
By way of these petitions, the petitioners are now for the first time

¶32

¶33

933, 936, 940 & 942.WP-12703-2023.doc

¶34

challenging the show cause notices received by them in October 2020.

¶35

4.The circumstances which according to the Committee confers
upon on it the powers and jurisdiction to undertake scrutiny of the
validity certificates of the petitioners is a matter which is under active
consideration of the Committee. Needless to state that the petitioners
would have every opportunity to put up their case before the Committee
and even challenge its jurisdiction. It would be premature for this Court
at this juncture to undertake any scrutiny regarding the sustainability of
the notices when the petitioners have not approached this Court by
putting up a challenge to the show cause notices promptly. Having
failed to file any response to the show cause notices, they are
approaching us belatedly. In the circumstances, we refuse to exercise
the power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶36

5.The Committee may proceed to take appropriate decision by
following principles of natural justice. However the decisions being
taken by the Committee shall be pronounced on a date notified, under
intimation to the petitioners.

¶37

6. The petitions are disposed of.

¶38

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]

¶39

Najee b .

Pallavi Chandrayya Aitwar through Power of Attorney Holder Chandrayya Ramkishtu Aitwar v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pallavi Chandrayya Aitwar through Power of Attorney Holder Chandrayya Ramkishtu Aitwar v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anmol Jayprakash Perke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gaurav Ratnakar Perke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Apurva Ratnakar Perke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pranav Kishor Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Ahinsa Private Industrial Training Institute Dondaicha through Its Principal Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Sagar Subhash Gavali Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others