Sunil S/O. Ratanlal Gautam Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Forest and Revenue Thr. Secy., Mumbai and Others

“i. issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and thereby direct the Respondent No.1 to submit a detailed report of the appointment of 5 employees of ESSEL WORLD permanently on the managerial post of Balasaheb Thakre Gorewada International Zoo without following due recruitment process;

¶18

ii. issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and thereby direct the Respondent No.2 to submit the complete details of salary paid to the 5 employees of ESSEL WORLD from 24/04/2019 till today from public exchequer;

¶19

iii. issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and thereby direct the Respondent No.2 to take complete control of Balasaheb Thakre Gorewada International Zoo and also set up the rules and regulations for the contracted private companies to function properly at Balasaheb Thakre Gorewada International Zoo in accordance with the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Indian Forest Act 1927 and Forest (Conservation) Act 1980;

¶20

iv. to set up inquiry committee under the Chairmanship of any Hon'ble Retired Judge of the High Court to look into the

¶21

2 84) PIL 31-2025.odt

¶22

illegalities being committed by Respondent No.2 and the contracted private companies;

¶23

v. issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and thereby direct the Respondent No.1 to punish the officers of FDCM responsible for not only inflicting the unfair labour practices on the low paid employees of Respondent No. 2 but also for committing the serious illegalities being hand in gloves with the private companies;

¶24

vi. issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and thereby direct the Respondent No.1 to lodge the FIR against the responsible individuals for committing the job fraud in Balasaheb Thakre Gorewada International Zoo;

¶25

vii. issue writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and thereby quash and set aside Board of Directors Resolutions dated 27/03/2019 and 17/03/2023 resolved by the Board of Directors of Respondent No.2 being void ab-initio; at Annex. P-B.

¶26

viii. by way of ad-interim relief direct Respondent No.2 not to take any coercive action against any of the employees working in the Balasaheb Thakre Gorewada International Zoo till the pendency of the present petition;

¶27

ix. grant ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (viii);

¶28

x. pass any other suitable order or direction in the facts and circumstances of the case which this Hon'ble Court deems fit;

¶29

xi. allow the petition, in the interest of justice, equity and fairness.”

¶30

From the above referred prayer Clauses, it is evident that most of the prayers are relating to service condition or appointment of the employees or the illegalities alleged to have committed by the respondents in the appointment of the employees.

¶31

It is settled law that, in a service matter, the PIL is not tenable as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey V/s. State of West Bengal reported in 2004(3) SCC 349 .

¶32

3 84) PIL 31-2025.odt

¶33

In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this PIL. Accordingly, it is dismissed .

¶34

However, we grant liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum if he so desires.

¶35

(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.)

¶36

(ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

¶37

B.T.K.

Sunil S/O. Ratanlal Gautam v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Forest and Revenue Thr. Secy., Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil S/O. Ratanlal Gautam v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Forest and Revenue Thr. Secy., Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vanashakti Public Trust Thr Its Director vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Lalchand Avachit Patil vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Others

Nilesh Tribhuvan vs State of Maharashtra

Datta Reshmaji Dighe Vs Union of India through Its Secretory and Others

Asha Wa Gatparavetak Karamchari Union (Citu), Nagpur, Thr. President, Rajendra S. Sathe and Ors. Vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi and Ors.

Conscious Citizen Forum Non-Governmental Organization Throu. Kumar Kamlesh vs State of Maharashtra Thru. Urban Development Dept and and Ors.

Aniruddha Narayan Malpani vs State of Maharashtra

Courts on Its Own Motion Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Forest, Mumbai and Others

Shirish S/O Vitthalrao Kadu Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

M/S Jai Ambe Rice Mill, Kurad, Gadchiroli Thr. P.O.A. Holder, Anil Asaram Vajhade vs State of Maha., Thr. Collector, Gadchiroli

Promarc Software Private Limited, Nagpur and Another vs Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Thr. Its Registrar, Nagpur

Amit Kumar Singh Vs the Agent and Dy. General Manager (Mines) Gr-Ii, Moil Ltd., Chikla Mine (Disciplinary Auth.) and

Saurabh Shriramji Mankar Vs the Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati and Ors.

Jaysingh Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd. Amravati Thr. President Dr. Ajay Bhimrao Kadu Vs General Manager (Marketing) Maha. State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Ltd. Mumbai and Others