← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/14822/2017disposed offdismissed for default

Ashok Manikrao Shinde v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2018-04-25Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Arun M. Dhavale3 pages

1 wp 14822.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 14822 OF 2017 Ashok Manikro Shinde .. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri Sudhir K. Chavan, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri A. V. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri Manish N. Navandar, Advocate for Respondent No. 4. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.

DATE : 25 th April, 2018 PER COURT :

1.

The claim of the petitioner for appointment from Project Affected Persons category is rejected.

2.

We have heard Mr. Chavan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Navandar, learned counsel for the respondent. 3.

The claim of the petitioner appears to have been rejected on the ground that father of the petitioner was given

2 wp 14822.17 employment and that one Mr. Madhav Tatyarao was also appointed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, his father was never appointed. In case he would have been appointed, then he would stand retired long back and would have got the benefit of pension. Mr. Madhav Tatyarao is not at all concerned with the family of the petitioner. The surname of the Madhav Tatyarao is Raner and the surname of the petitioners family is Shinde. That Madhav Tatyarao had purchased remaining two acres of land from Gut No. 14, which is distinct from the land purchased by the father of the petitioner. The said aspect is not considered.

4.

Considering the anomaly, the respondent shall reconsider the case of the petitioner from Project Affected Persons category. The petitioner may submit the documents relied upon by the petitioner to the respondent. The respondent shall reconsider the case of the petitioner on its own merits and take decision about the claim of the petitioner from Project Affected Persons category. The impugned order would not be an impediment for the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner thereby

3 wp 14822.17 considering the documents that may be produced by the petitioner. The said decision be taken expeditiously. 5.

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. No costs. [A. M. DHAVALE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] marathe