← Library
Bombay High CourtPIL/100/2009disposed off

Shri. Balasaheb Baburao Jambhulkar v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS.

2016-01-13Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.A. Sayed,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Naresh H. Patil2 pages

1/2 pil 100.09..sxw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.100 OF 2009 Shri BalasahebBaburao Jambhulkar ...

Petitioner V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & ors.

...

Respondents Mr. Pralhad D. Paranjape a/w. Mr. Abhisek A. Patwari advocates i/b. Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh for the petitioner.

Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP for the State.

Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr. S.S. Kanetkar for respondents 5 to 9.

Mr. Rui Rodrigues i/b. Ms. Pranali Dixit for respondent no.4. Mr. Rajendra Anbhule for respondent no.3.

CORAM :

NARESH H. PATIL AND A.A. SAYED, JJ.

13th January, 2016.

P.C.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and learned Senior Counsel Shri Jahagirdar for respondents 5 to 9.

2.

Petition is pending since 2009. The petitioner claims to be a social worker. He wants to bring to the notice of the concerned authorities various misdeeds taking place in the administration of the trust. Various allegations are made. The allegations are denied on behalf of the trust.

2/2 pil 100.09..sxw 3.

We have heard the Counsel appearing for University. The Counsel appearing for University submits that so far no representation has been received from the petitioner raising specific issues and grievance concerning the administration of the respondent trust. We have perused the earlier order passed by this Court. We find that it would be appropriate to dispose of the petition by issuing following directions: In case the petitioner files a comprehensive representation in respect of the subject issue raised in this petition addressed to the appropriate University authorities then the authority concerned would look into the grievance and take appropriate steps strictly in accordance with law and by following principles of natural justice. 4.

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations made by the petitioner. All issues are kept open. The issue concerning jurisdiction of the University is also kept open. 5.

With aforesaid observations and direction, Petition is disposed of. (A.A. SAYED, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) L.S. Panjwani, P.S.