Disposed

Ankita W/O Prashant Darekar v. State of Maha., Thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Mumbai Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jul 2024WP/2253/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order of the Divisional Commissioner remanding an appointment matter to the Zilla Parishad CEO. An enquiry report recorded that her appointment was proper; she withdrew the petition and the court disposed it as withdrawn, directing the CEO to decide per the report.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ankita W/O Prashant Darekar Vs State of Maha., Thr… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:8483

¶2

WP 2253 of 2024.odt

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2253/2024

¶6

Ankita w/o Prashant Darekar ...Versus…

¶7

State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Mantalaya, Mumbai – 32 and others

¶8

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions

¶10

Court's or Judge's orders

¶11

and Registrar's orders

¶12

¶13

Mr. G.S. Dhaye, Advocate for petitioner

¶14

Ms Payal Bawankule, AGP for respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 Mr. Milind Rathi, Advocate for respondent no.3 Mr. V.S. Giramkar, Advocate for respondent no.5

¶15

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 25/07/2024

¶16

This petition takes exception to the order dated 12/02/2024 passed by respondent No.2 – Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati.

¶17

This Court on 08/05/2024 had passed the

¶18

following order :

¶19

“1. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3- Zilla Parishad is praying for time to file reply in this matter.

¶20

Place this matter on 27/06/2024.

¶21

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that vide impugned order dated 12/02/2024 the matter was remanded back to the Respondent No.3-Chief Executive Officer to take a decision within 15 days.

¶22

It is submitted that if the decision is taken as per the directions issued by the Divisional Commissioner, the purpose of filing of the petition would get frustrated. He,

¶23

WP 2253 of 2024.odt

¶24

¶25

therefore, prays for stay to the impugned directions to issue order within 15 days after making enquiry.

¶26

In the above referred backdrop, the Respondent No.3-Chief Executive Officer is permitted to go ahead with the enquiry, but he is precluded from issuing any appointment order, till next date.”

¶27

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has tendered the enquiry report. The report is taken on record and marked “X” for the purpose of identification. According to enquiry report the appointment of the petitioner was proper.

¶28

In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present petition.

¶29

The writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn.

¶30

Respondent No.3 shall take appropriate decision in accordance with the enquiry report. No order as to costs.

¶31

(N.R. BORKAR, J.)

¶32

Wadkar

Ankita W/O Prashant Darekar v. State of Maha., Thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Mumbai Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ankita W/O Prashant Darekar v. State of Maha., Thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Mumbai Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harish S/O Sawaldas Panjwani vs Gopichand S/O Gajanmal Balwani and Others

Narendra S/O Nirmalkumar Jain and Another vs Shrikrishna S/O Prafulla Buty

Deepak S/O. Bharatsingh Thakur vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Addl. Collector, Chandrapur and Others

Gowardhan @ Jayant S/O. Laxmanroa Dudhe Vs the Collector, Wardha and Others

Sanjeev v.Chimote (Huf),Acting Thr.Karta, Sanjeev v. Chimote Thr. P.O.a, Subodh G. Gattani and Ors. vs Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd., Thr. Chairman, Mumbai, Thr. Chairman/ Auth. Signatory and Ors.

Divisional Controller, Maha. State Road Trsnsport Corporation, Akola vs Prakash Mahadeorao Wankhede