Anil Ambar Patil v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8226 OF 2015 ANIL AMBAR PATIL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...
Advocate for Petitioner : Smt. Mahajan Surekha P. AGP for Respondents: Smt. Shinde V.A.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: August 13, 2015 ...
PER COURT :- 1.
I have heard Smt. Mahajan, learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner at length. It is pointed out that respondent No.3 by order dated 16.6.2015 has set aside the appointment of 13 employees since the said appointments are in opposition to circular dated 27.6.2014, applicable to the respondent No.6 Agricultural Produce Market Committee. 2.
In an Appeal, along with an Application for interim stay, filed by respondent Nos.7 to 19, the Honourable Minister by order dated 22.7.2015 has stayed the order dated 16.6.2015,which had cancelled the appointments of 13 employees, during the pendency and hearing of the main appeal. 3.
Smt. Mahajan has set out several factors for assailing the impugned order passed by the Honourable Minister. She has strenuously made an effort to indicate that the cancellation of appointments of the 13 employees by the third respondent is a just and proper act. The order dated 16.6.2015, ought not to have been interfered with by the Honourable Minister.
4.
Learned AGP on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 points out that the Honourable Minister has ordered in Clause 3 of the operative part of the akl/d
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8226 OF 2015 impugned order dated 22.7.2015, that the main Appeal shall be decided on 2.9.2015.
5.
It is further pointed out that the petitioner, who had appeared before the Honourable Minister, by filing an application seeking intervention under Order I Rule 8A of the CPC, has been arrayed as a party respondent in the main Appeal and his application has been allowed by the Honourable Minister, by the impugned order.
6.
Considering the fact situation as above, and taking into account that the appeal has been posted for hearing on 2.9.2015, I am not interfering with the impugned order. It is clarified that this Court has not dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioner assailing the impugned order. Needless to state, it is expected that the Honourable Minister shall decide the said Appeal expeditiously.
7.
Writ Petition is, therefore, rejected.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...
akl/d