Dismissed

Shri. Anant Ganpat Gurav Trustee Nijampur Vibhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors. v. Nijampur Vibhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through President and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Aug 2023WP/5402/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order of the School Tribunal rejecting an application to disclose the appearance of the trust's President in an appeal. The Court held that inter se disputes among managing committee members are completely alien to the School Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977. Consequ

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri. Anant Ganpat Gurav Trustee Nijampur Vibhag Shikshan… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

48-wp-5402-2022.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.5402 OF 2022

¶4

Anant Ganpat Gurav, Trustee and Others ...Petitioners vs.

¶5

VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR

¶6

Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2023.08.12 17:12:26 +0530

¶7

Nijampur Vibhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Others ...Respondents

¶8

Ms. Kumud Bhatia, for the Petitioners. Ms. Gauri Jadhav, for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

¶9

CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : AUGUST 10, 2023

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

The challenge in this petition is to an order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune on an application preferred by the petitioners, who claim to be the members of the Managing Committee of respondent No. 1 Nijampur Vibhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal.

¶13

By the said application, the petitioners sought an order to discard and cancel the appearance of Mr. Dattu Ramji Pawar, respondent No. 2, who claims to be the President of respondent No.1 trust on the premise that the President was acting in an arbitrary

Vishal Parekar

...1

48-wp-5402-2022.doc

manner and had not consulted the members of the managing committee in the matter of defence of the said appeal. It was alleged that the president was taking decisions as if it was a personal matter.

¶18

By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer was persuaded to reject the application holding that no ground was made out to seek the prayers as claimed by the petitioners nor it was brought on record that the petitioners were the members of the managing committee.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that by rejecting the instant application the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners. The impugned order implies that the respondent No. 2 is the president and in-charge of the affairs of respondent No. 1 trust.

¶20

The petitioners have chosen a wrong forum to agitate the inter se dispute. The respondent No. 3 herein has preferred the appeal assailing her termination from the service by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The dispute members of the managing committee of respondent No. 1 interse are completely alien to the remit of the

Vishal Parekar

...2

48-wp-5402-2022.doc

jurisdiction to be exercised by the School Tribunal under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977.

¶25

The impugned order thus does not suffer from either jurisdictional error or procedural defect. Hence, no case is made out to entertain the petition.

¶26

The petition stands dismissed.

¶27

Vishal Parekar

¶28

...3

Shri. Anant Ganpat Gurav Trustee Nijampur Vibhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors. v. Nijampur Vibhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through President and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri. Anant Ganpat Gurav Trustee Nijampur Vibhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors. v. Nijampur Vibhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through President and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Austin Jerome Rodricks and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Revenue Dept. and Ors.

M/S. Skyline Developers, Thr. Its Partner Shri Narendra Janardan Pathak Vs Suresh Yashwant Phadke and Others

St. Philomena Bakery Thr. Its Partner Shoeb Atta Mohd.Siddiqui Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another

Hind Rectifiers Limited Vs Engineering Mazdoor Sabha

Niyati Manoj Sagar Vs Aashish Ashok Agarwal

Ravindu Naresh Turakhia and Another Vs Suresh Ramsagar Sharma and Others