Bombay High CourtWP/444/2020dismissed

Sthanik Kantratdar Kalyan Association Khaperkheda, Thr. Its President Ashok M. Ramteke v. State Of Mah., Thr. Secretary, Home Deptt., Mantralaya, And Others

2020-08-21Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Avinash G. Gharote2 pages

ldvcwp1001.2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LD-VC WP NO. 1001/2020 Sthanik Kantratdar Kalyan ..VS..

State of Maharashtra & ors.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders appearances, Court'

s orders of directions and Registrar'

s orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.R. Ingole, Advocate for the petitioner Shri S.J. Kadu, APP for the respondent/State Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate for the respondent no. 5 CORAM : Z.A.HAQ & AVINASH G. GHAROTE , J J .

DATED : 21/08/2020 1] Heard.

2] By the present petition, it is prayed that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 be directed to register offence under the Covid 19 Regulation Act and the Disaster Management Act against the respondent no. 7 and the persons responsible for commission of the offence.

3] A perusal of the petition would point out that the petitioner claims to be an association of contractors at Khaperkheda, Tahsil Saoner, District Nagpur. On a pertinent query being made as to against how many persons the petitioner has lodged similar complaints, the learned advocate for the petitioner claims ignorance.

4] Considering the nature of the complaint, it is clearly apparent that the same is instituted not because of any ANSARI

ldvcwp1001.2020 public spirit but because of the personal agenda. A statement is made by learned advocate for the respondent no. 5 that action is already directed to be initiated against the respondent no. 7 and so also disciplinary action has been taken by stoppage of one increment and recovery of Rs. 1750/- from each of the participants.

5] Considering the above situation, we do not find any merit in the petition. The same is therefore dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE ANSARI