Bombay High CourtWP/916/2015rejected at admission stage

Shri Sant Dnyaneshwar Bahuddeshiya Sanstha Through Its President Mrs. Savita Raut v. State Of Mah. Through Its Secty., Dept. Of Social Justice And Special Aid Service Dept. And 5 Other

2015-04-06Hon'Ble Shri Justice B. P. Dharmadhikari,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sunil B. Shukre2 pages

0604wp916.15.odt 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 916 OF 2015 (Sant Dnyaneshwar Bahuddeshiya Sanstha Vs. State of Maharashtra & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R. D. Khade, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. B. P. Maldhure, A.G.P. for respondents No. 1 to 3. CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI AND S. B. SHUKRE, JJ.

DATED : 06 APRIL, 2015 Heard.

Submission is, the hostel was inspected without previous intimation by an officer against whom there was complaint of harassment and corruption. Learned A.G.P. submits that the impugned order shows lacunae and the petitioner could not point out anything to the contrary.

The inspection made by the Authority, which is alleged to be biased stand, lacunae noted show absence of independent building for hostel, absence of facilities, absence of sufficient food stock, absence of any employee staying in the hostel and inability to produce record for verification. It is also recorded that only nine students were present out of

0604wp916.15.odt 2/2 total twenty-four.

In this situation, it is obvious that the hostel needed to be inspected by paying surprise visit only. If the factual data recorded by the said officer is incorrect, the petitioner could have produced necessary material before the first Authority or then before the Appellate Authority. That has not been done. Necessary records or material is not annexed even with this petition. As such, we find no case is made out. The writ petition is rejected. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE wwl