Nana Wamanrao Chunade vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 7342 Bom
Judgement Date : 6 May, 2021

Bombay High Court
Nana Wamanrao Chunade vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 6 May, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
                               1                            wp 1814-2021.odt

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                   Writ Petition No. 1814 of 2021

   PETITIONER:                     Nana Wamanrao Chunade,
                                   Age :- 60 years, occup. : Retired
                                   R/o :- Netaji Chowk, Chandur Bazar,
                                   Tq. Chandur Bazar, Dist. Amravati

                                       Vs.

   RESPONDENTS :                   1. State of Maharashtra,
                                      Through its Secretary, School Education
                                      and Sports Department, Mantralay,
                                      Mumbai - 32.

                                   2. Education Officer (Secondary)
                                      Zilla Parishad, Amravati

                                   3. Peoples Welfare Society Amravati,
                                      Though its Secretary, office at
                                      'Chirantan', Madhuban Colony, Camp,
                                      Amravati - 444602.

     Mr. Parag A. Kadu, Advocate for petitioner.
     Mr. A.S. Fulzele, Addl. G.P. for respondents No.1 and 2

                                    CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                            AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATE : 06/05/2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.) :

Hearing was conducted through video conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 13:08:08 :::

2 wp 1814-2021.odt

2. Heard Shri Parag A. Kadu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.S. Fulzele, learned Addl. G.P. for respondents No.1 and 2, who appears by waiving notice for them. There is no need to issue notice to respondent No.3 as a limited relief has been sought by issuing appropriate directions to the respondent No.2.

3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

4. Having considered the nature of limited relief sought in this petition, we allow the petition and direct the respondent No.2 to decide the representation dated 25/02/2019 made by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of order, in accordance with law.

5. Rule accordingly. No costs.

                           JUDGE                                       JUDGE


MP Deshpande




         ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2021                     ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 13:08:08 :::