Dismissed

Machindra J. Bamne v. Union of India

Bombay HC27 Mar 2024WP/1164/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court bench disposed of a writ petition challenging a PF Commissioner's chargesheet, holding that the petitioner must exhaust the alternative remedy under the Administrative Tribunals Act before approaching the High Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; liberty granted to file Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal; interim order discontinued.

Machindra J. Bamne vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Neeta Sawant 11-WP-1164-2024.docx

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1164 OF 2024

¶4

Machindra J. Bamne } ...Petitioner V/S. Union of India and Ors. } ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. K.H. Holambe-Patil with Mr. Nitin S. Markute, for the Petitioner.

¶6

Ms. Ranjana Todankar, for the Respondents.

¶7

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Dated : 27 March 2024.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

By this petition, the Petitioner challenges the Memorandum of Chargesheet dated 20 February 2023 issued by the Regional Provident Fund commissioner. Petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the said Memorandum of Chargesheet. As held by the Constitution Bench judgment in L. Chandra Kumar V/s. Union of India¹ it is not permissible for the Petitioner to directly approach this Court without first availing the remedy available under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The principle has been reiterated in Division Bench judgments of this Court in Gaurav

¶10

1 AIR 1997 SC 1125

¶11

____Page No. 1 of 2 ____ 27 March 2024

¶12

Neeta Sawant 11-WP-1164-2024.docx

¶13

Ganesh Das Daga V/s. Maharashtra Public Service Commission² and Chaitali Jitendra Katariya V/s. State of Maharashtra³ . In that view of the matter, it would not be possible for this Court to entertain the present petition in the light of availability of remedy of filing Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

¶14

2) The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioner to file Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would urge for continuation of the interim order dated 28 August 2023. In view of the fact that the present petition cannot be entertained by this Court, there is no question of continuation of interim order. The Petitioner will have to move the Central Administrative Tribunal and apply for appropriate interim orders.

¶15

Digitally signed by NEETA NEETA SHAILESH SHAILESH SAWANT SAWANT Date: 2024.03.28 10:58:58 +0530

¶16

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

¶17

2 (2022) 3 Mh.L.J. 770

¶18

3 (2022) 6 AIR Bom.R. 483

¶19

____Page No. 2 of 2 ____ 27 March 2024

Machindra J. Bamne v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Machindra J. Bamne v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mushtaq Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and 5 Ors.

Samirunnisa Mohd Islam vs Mushtaq Shaikh and 5 Ors.

Sidharam Mallappa Unnad Vs Abhimanyu Basappa Rabba

Ravi Raghunath Khanjode and 23 Ors. vs Harasiddh Corporation

Jitendra Ramkrishna Naik vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary

Prateek Raman Kothari vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary