Bombay High Court
Jijamata Mahila Mandal, Nimdale vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 13 April, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 W.P.No.2839/14
UNREPORTED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.2839 OF 2014.
Jijamata Mahila Mandal, Nimdale
Tq. and District Dhule,
through its President,
Sau.Shobha Hari Jadhav,
Age years, Occ.Social Service,
R/o Nimdale, Tq.and Dist.
Dhule. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Women and Children Development
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. The Commissioner,
Women and Children Development,
Pune.
3. The District Women and Children
Development Officer, Dhule.
District Dhule.
4. The District Committee for
Scrutiny, For the proposals of
Counseling Center for Women and
Children, through its President
Police Superintendent, Dhule.
5. Omsai Shaikshanik va Samajik
Sanstha, New Plot, Near Bhagini
Mandal School, Amalner, Dist.
Jalgaon, through its President.
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:11:14 :::
2 W.P.No.2839/14
6. Gaitri Social and Welfare
Sanstha, Nariman Parshi Chawl,
Railway Station Road, Dhule,
District Dhule, through its
President.
7. Nalanda Balvikas Magasvargiya
Mahila Mandal, At Shevali,
Post Sakri, Tq. Sakri, Dist.
Dhule, through its President. ... Respondents.
...
Mr.Y.B.Bolkar, advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.M.A.Deshpande, A.G.P. for the State.
Mr.K.C.Sant, advocate for Respondent No.5.
ig ...
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
K.K.SONAWANE,JJ.
Date : 13.04.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.)
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the parties, petition is taken up
for final hearing.
3. Mr.Bolkar, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the impugned Government
Resolution dated 4.1.2014, is against the terms
of the advertisement itself. The learned counsel
submits that the Respondent No.3 published an
advertisement on 19.7.2011, inviting applications
from various social institutions to establish
counseling centers (Special Cell) for Women and
Children at Dhule city Police Station as well as
Shirpur and Sakri Taluka Police Stations. The
petitioner submitted the proposal in the
prescribed format along with detail information
for Dhule city Police Station, Shirpur and Sakri
Talukas. The proposals were placed before the
Committee. The petitioner institution is at
serial No.1 in merit for Sakri Taluka and at
serial No.2 for Dhule. The learned counsel
submits that pursuant thereto, the further
process was not conducted and on 18.8.2012, again
fresh advertisement was published by the Women
and Child Development Department. In the said
advertisement it was specifically stated that the
proposals should be submitted afresh pursuant to
the said advertisement. The petitioner again
submitted fresh proposal on 31.8.2012 for Women
Counseling Centers at Dhule, Shirpur and Sakri,
along with all the relevant documents. The said
proposal was scrutinised. The petitioner
institution was shown at serial No.1 in the merit
list for Shirpur Taluka.
4. The State Government issued Resolution
dated 4.1.2014, for Shirpur, it was allotted to
the present Respondent No.5. According to the
learned counsel, Respondent No.5 had not filled
in any proposal, pursuant to the advertisement of
the year 2012, still, the said center is allotted
to the Respondent No.5.
5. Mr.Sant, learned counsel for Respondent
No.5 submits that the Government has taken a
decision. Earlier the petitioner had submitted
proposal, pursuant to the advertisement of the
year 2011 and the petitioner was selected
therein. No error has been committed in that
regard.
6. We have also heard learned A.G.P.
7. The terms and conditions of the
advertisement of the year 2012, which are issued
for Women Counseling Center for Dhule District
are clear. It states that fresh proposals are to
be submitted pursuant to the said advertisement.
It is not disputed that the Respondent No.5 had
not submitted any proposal for Shirpur, pursuant
to the advertisement of the year 2012. Even
pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2011,
Respondent No.5 had submitted proposal for Women
Counseling Center at Amalner and Shirpur and
Respondent No.5 was at serial No.1 for Amalner.
8. On perusal of the conditions of the
advertisement of the year 2012, there is no
manner of doubt that the parties were required to
submit the fresh proposal and only fresh proposal
could have been considered. The said
advertisement does not even remotely suggest of
any earlier proposal to be considered. Even
fresh ranking in the order of merit was given,
pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2012.
9. In view of the aforesaid conspectus of
the matter, the Resolution dated 4.1.2014 to the
extent of Shirpur certainly would be erroneous
and deserves to be set aside.
10. In the result, the Government
Resolution dated 4.1.2014, issued by the Deputy
Secretary, Women and Child Development Department
to the extent it concerns allotment of Women
Counseling Center for Shirpur in favour of
Respondent No.5 is to that extent quashed and
set aside. This Court vide order dated 28.3.2014
had granted interim relief in terms of prayer
clause (D)
ig so far it relates to allotment of
Counseling Center at Shirpur Taluka.
11. If there is no other impediment, the
Respondents shall consider the allotment of the
said Women Counseling Center at Shirpur to the
petitioner as it is found that the petitioner is
ranked lst in the order of merit.
12. Rule accordingly made absolute in above
terms. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(K.K.SONAWANE,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
asp/office/wp2839.14
