Vaishali Bhaskar Jagtap v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR.

34-wp-13026.16.sxw hvn

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 13026 OF 2016 Vaishali Bhaskar Jagtap ...

Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra and Ors.

...

Respondents Mr. A.R. Kapadnis i/by Mr. B.S. Shinde for the petitioner. Ms.Nisha Mehra, AGP for Respondent State.

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.

DATED : NOVEMBER 22, 2016.

P.C.

Not on board. Taken on production board in view of the urgency.

2.

Parties through their counsel.

3.

Petitioner claims that his proposal in respect of inter district transfer is pending before the Zilla Parishad Sangali. According to the petitioner, his case is squarely covered by the order passed by the Division Bench in the case of Lilabai Vasant Talekar Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune in WP No. 5779 of 2014 decided on 3.3.2015 as also the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Latika Lalasaheb Kakade Vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune and Ors. in W.P. No.

34-wp-13026.16.sxw 4857 of 2016 decided on 5.5.2016. Today when the matter came up for hearing, the only prayer made by the petitioner is to dispose of this petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation with the supporting documents before Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli and the said authority be directed to consider and take appropriate decision on the said representation keeping in view the law laid down by this court in the case of Lilabai Vasant Talekar (supra) and Latika Lalasaheb Kakade (supra).

4.

Keeping in view the aforesaid limited prayer, without commenting upon the merits of the matter and petitioner's entitlement, we dispose of this petition by directing the respondent No. 2 to consider and take appropriate decision on the petitioner's claim keeping in view the laid down in the abovesaid decisions. The decision be taken within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Needless to say that we have not expressed any opinion about the merits of the petitioner's claim. 5.

Petition is disposed of.

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)