Mr. Jagannath Mahadev Kadrekar v. Add. Chief Secretary Higher And Technical Education And ORS.

J R Mane 1 16-WP-4624-18.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4624 OF 2018 Mr. Jagannath Mahadev Kadrekar Retired:Chairman, IMC, ITI Malvan, Sindhudurg ...

Petitioner.

V/S.

Add. Chief Secretary Higher And Technical Education And Ors.

...

Respondents.

.......

None for the Petitioner.

Mr. N.K.Rajpurohit for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. .......

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR, AND MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : 2 November 2023.

P.C. :

None for the Petitioner.

The Petitioner claims to be a retired Chairman of an Organization i.e. Institute Management Committee (IMC) constituted in the Industrial Training Institute (ITI), Malvan, Dist.- JYOTI RAJESH MANE Sindhudurg, which is registered under Societies Registration Act, by JYOTI RAJESH MANE Date: 2023.11.07 06:52:01 +0530 1860. It is stated in the Petition that the Petitioner had taken over a project to build a houseboat for local tourism to generate revenue sources. It is stated in the Petition that in the year 2012 certain

J R Mane 2 16-WP-4624-18.doc inquiries were made as regards this project, by the Director of Vocational Education and Training, Mumbai. An inquiry was conducted and report was submitted. Thereafter, the Petition is filed in December 2017 for a declaration that interference of Director of Vocational Education and Training is illegal and inquiry report be given to the Petitioner. It was also prayed in the Petition to restrain the Director of Vocational Education and Training, Mumbai, from interfering with Petitioner's function.

The prayers are therefore, to restrain the statutory authorities from making any inquiry and proceeding further. There is reference to the report of an Auditor dated 12 January 2012. Nothing is placed on record as to what has transpired thereafter for last eleven years. It is not informed whether the project is going on and/or whether Petitioner continues to represent the Organization. Perhaps by passage of time the Petitioner has lost interest as subsequent developments are not brought on record.

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

If there are any subsequent developments prejudicial to the Petitioner, it is open to the Petitioner to take such action as may be permissible in law.

(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)