Mohammad Fahim S/O Mohammad Bashid v. the State of Maha. Thr. the Chief Sec. Govt. of Maha. Mantrlaya, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC11 Jul 2024WP/4075/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition questioning the appointment and continuance of respondent no.4 as Director General (Mining), Directorate of Geology and Mining, Nagpur, on locus grounds invoking quo warranto principles from Rajesh Awasthi. Court issued notice to respondents returnable on 25.07.2024; Additional Government Pleader waived service for respondent nos.1 to 3.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mohammad Fahim S/O Mohammad Bashid vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

918-WP-4075-2024.odt 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.4075 of 2024

¶4

Mohammad Fahim s/o Mohammad Bashid vs.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶7

Court's or Judge's Order

¶8

Mr. Firdos Mirza, Advocate for petitioner.

¶9

CORAM :- NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE :- 11^th JULY, 2024

¶10

Heard.

¶11

In response to the Court’s query, Mr. Mirza, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, drawing support from the observations made in paragraph 31 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Rajesh Awasthi vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal and others [(2013)1 SCC 501], which reads as under:

¶12

‘31. From the aforesaid pronouncements it is graphically clear that a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto and he stands in th eposition of a relater. He need not have any special interest or personal interest. The real test is to see whether the person holding the office is authorised to hold the same as per law. Delay and laches do not constitute any impediment to deal with lis on merits and it has been so stated in Kashinath G. Jalmi v. Speaker [(1993) 2 SCC 703] ’

¶13

would urge that the petition at the behest of the petitioner who operates mines of major minerals has locus to question the appointment of the respondent no.4 on the post of Director General (Mining), Directorate of Geology and Mining at Nagpur.

¶14

According to Mr. Mirza, General Administration Department has already raised an objection to the appointment of the respondent no.4,

¶15

918-WP-4075-2024.odt 2

¶16

however for the reasons best known, the respondent no.4, who is not qualified to hold the said post, is continued on the said post.

¶17

Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 25.07.2024.

¶18

Mr. D. P. Thakre, learned Additional Government Pleader waives

¶19

service of notice for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶20

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶21

Andurkar.

¶22

Signed by: Jayant S. Andurkar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 11/07/2024 19:38:28

Mohammad Fahim S/O Mohammad Bashid v. the State of Maha. Thr. the Chief Sec. Govt. of Maha. Mantrlaya, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mohammad Fahim S/O Mohammad Bashid v. the State of Maha. Thr. the Chief Sec. Govt. of Maha. Mantrlaya, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr. Avinash Mukund Asnare vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary for Higher and Technical Education Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Tithi Wd/O Vasudeo Sarkar vs State of Maha., Thr. Principal Secretary, Dept. of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Another

Tithi Wd/O Vasudeo Sarkar vs State of Maha., Thr. Principal Secretary, Dept. of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Another

Sukhdeo S/O Sahadeo Shendre vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Ors.

Sukhdeo S/O Sahadeo Shendre vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Ors.

Altaf S/O a Majeed Ahmed vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Another