Disposed¶27

Sagar Dnyaneshwar Shinde v. Secretary Maharashtra State Commission and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Feb 2025PIL/110/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maharashtra State Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes; appointment of Chairman, Vice Chairman and members; Government Resolution dated 16.09.2024; qualifications under Appendix to Government Resolution dated 01.03.2005; Member (Law); Member (Services); writ of quo warranto; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; pending complaints including petition dated 26.09.2023; PIL disposed of; Bombay High Court; Chief Justice Alok Aradhe; Justice Arif S. Doctor; 18 February 2025.

What did the court decide?

PIL disposed of as the grievance stands redressed; petitioner granted liberty to pursue the independent cause of action arising from the appointments made during pendency by seeking a writ of quo warranto for quashment of those appointments; pending interim applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶27

Sagar Dnyaneshwar Shinde vs Secretary Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to appoint the Chairman and other members to the Maharashtra State Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and to expeditiously determine pending complaints, including the complaint dated 26.09.2023. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The petitioner's grievance stands redressed, as pursuant to the affidavit-in-reply the Chairman, Vice Chairman and two other members have been appointed to the Commission by Government Resolution dated 16.09.2024 and the Commission is functioning.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner is aggrieved by the appointments made to the Commission during the pendency of the petition, the same furnishes an independent cause of action, and the petitioner is at liberty to seek a writ of quo warranto for quashment of those appointments.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PIL No. 110 of 2024, High Court of Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), decided 18.02.2025 by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe (order per Chief Justice) with Justice Arif S. Doctor. Petitioner, pro bono publico, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India sought a direction to appoint the Chairman and other members to the Maharashtra State Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and expeditious determination of pending complaints, including a complaint dated 26.09.2023. In the affidavit-in-reply, respondents stated that by Government Resolution dated 16.09.2024 the Chairman, Vice Chairman and two other members had been appointed and the Commission was functioning. An earlier order of this Court dated 18.09.2024 had recorded the petitioner's grievance that the appointees (including Member (Law) and Member (Services)) did not fulfil the requisite qualifications prescribed in the Appendix to the Government Resolution dated 01.03.2005. The Court held that the grievance in the prayer clause stood redressed; any grievance regarding the appointments made during pendency furnishes an independent cause of action, with liberty to seek a writ of quo warranto for their quashment. PIL disposed of accordingly; interim applications, if any, disposed of.

¶1

3-PIL-110-2024

¶2

Pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 110 OF 2024

¶5

Sagar Dnyaneshwar Shinde .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Secretary, Maharashtra State Commission for Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Digitally signed by PRAVIN PRAVINDASHARATHPANDIT DASHARATHPANDITDate:2025.02.18 20:29:09 +0530

¶9

Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar a/w Ms. Raufa Shaikh for petitioner.

¶10

Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader with Mrs. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for respondent nos.1, 2, 4 and 5.

¶11

CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

¶12

DATE: 18^th FEBRUARY, 2025

¶13

ORDER [Per Chief Justice]:

¶14

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.

¶15

2. In this petition filed pro bono publico , the petitioner, inter alia , seeks a direction to the respondents to appoint the Chairman and other members to Maharashtra State Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes.

¶16

3. Following prayer has been made in the writ petition:

¶17

a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any

¶18

¶19

3-PIL-110-2024

¶20

other appropriate Writ, Order of direction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the functioning of the State Commission for ST/SC and after examining the legality and/or propriety thereof be pleased to direct the respondent no.4 to appoint the Chairman of the State Commission for ST/SC forthwith and further direct expeditious determination of the pending complaints including the complaint of petition dated 26.09.2023.

¶21

4. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that by a Government Resolution dated 16^th September, 2024 Chairman, Vice Chairman and two other members have been appointed to the Maharashtra State Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and the Commission is functioning.

¶22

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court to an order dated 18^th September, 2024 wherein this Court had recorded the grievance of the petitioner that the appointments which have been made are not in consonance with the provisions contained in the Appendix appended to the Government Resolution dated 1^st March, 2005, in as much as that the Member (Law), Member (Services) and similar other members, who have been appointed by means of the Government Resolution dated 16^th September, 2024, do not fulfil the requisite qualifications.

¶23

6. From the perusal of the prayer clause quoted supra, it is evident that the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the appointments made to the Commission which have been taken place during the

¶24

¶25

3-PIL-110-2024

¶26

pendency of the petition, the same furnishes an independent cause of action. The petitioner is at liberty to seek writ of quo warranto seeking quashment of their appointments.

¶27

7. With the aforesaid liberty, PIL is disposed of.

¶28

8. Pending Interim Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶29

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶30

Sagar Dnyaneshwar Shinde v. Secretary Maharashtra State Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Dnyaneshwar Shinde v. Secretary Maharashtra State Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Umesh Shankarrao Bhole and Others vs State of Maha., Thr.Secretary, Dept. of Agriculture, Animal Husb., Dairy and Fisheries and Ors.

Ramchandra Dattatray Shelake and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Abhiijit Madhukar Garad and Anr. vs Pune Municipal Corporation Throu. Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

Somesh Nagnath Kshirsagar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Prakruti Foundation, Thr. Its President, Deepak Bharatsingh Dixit vs Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi and Others

Zoru Darayus Bhathena vs Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation

Kishore Mansukhani Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhpuendra Govindrao Jadhav vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary and Others

Kr Construction vs State of Maharashtra

Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs Sundara Helena Esther

Kakasaheb Vitthal Khandare and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary and Ors.

Bisleri International Private Limited vs Ravi Kanth Kasala Proprietor of Devi Beverages

Asian Paints Limited vs Signaturre Paints Private Limited

Kr Construction vs State of Maharashtra