Yogesh Arjun Pingle And ORS v. Prashant Doke And ORS

Husen 1 19 WP -5901 -2024 (C).doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5901 OF 2024 Yogesh Arjun Pingle And Ors.

...Petitioners

Versus

Prashant Doke And Ors.

...Respondents

**** Mr. Kalim Ansari, Tuba Khan, i/b.AMK Nexus Law Firm, for Petitioners.

Mr. P.P. Kakade, GP a/w. Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

**** CORAM: NITIN JAMDAR & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.

by HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN NADAF Date: 2024.05.07 10:30:55 +0530 HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN NADAF DATE : 24 APRIL 2024 P.C.:

.

In this Petition five Respondents have been joined including Chief Minister of Maharashtra and Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra, all by name. This is objectionable. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that Petitioners are working as Drivers and are not aware of the legal position. If that was so, it was the duty of the advocate to guide them.

2.

It is stated in the Petition that Government Transport Service Department falls within the purview of Protocol Department under the Maharashtra Government. Though it is orally sought to be contended that the Petitioners may also fall within the services of Central Government, none of the Respondents are Central

Husen 2 19 WP -5901 -2024 (C).doc Government functionaries. Relief is entirely against the State authorities. The Constitution Bench in case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India1 has held that in cases of services relating to State and Central Government, the Courts of first instance are the administrative tribunals and the High Court will not directly entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3.

In light thereof, writ petition is disposed of. ( M.M. SATHAYE, J.) ( NITIN JAMDAR, J.) (1997) 3 SCC 261