Vijay Rajaram Thombre And Others vs The Commissioner, Tribal ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 8090 Bom

   wp2016.21                                                                 1



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

                      WRIT PETITION NO.2016 OF 2021


  1. Vijay Rajaram Thombre,
     Aged 33 yrs, Occ. Asst. Teacher,
     R/o Konti, Post Varna, Tal.
     Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana.

  2. Raju Gajanan Bhalerao,
     Aged 37 yrs, Occ. Cook,
     R/o At Post Ganeshpur,
     Tal. Khamgaon, Distt. Buldhana.

  3. Ravindra Sukhdev Dangare,
     Aged 37 yrs, Occ. Helper,
     R/o At Post Ganeshpur,
     Tal. Khamgaon, Distt. Buldhana.                ... PETITIONERS

                    Versus

  1. The Commissioner,
     Tribal Development Department,
     Maharashtra State, Nasik.

  2. The Additional Commissioner,
     Tribal Development Department,
     Maharashtra State, Amravati.

  3. The Project Officer,
     Integrated Tribale Development
     Project, Akola.

  4. The Project Officer,
     Integrated Tribal Development
     Project, Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli.

  5. Anudanit Adiwasi Ashram School
     Chondi Fata, Tal.Sengaon, Dist.
     Hingoli, through its Head Master.      . ... RESPONDENTS




::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2021              ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2021 00:28:09 :::
    wp2016.21                                                                         2




  Shri P. S.Kshirsagar, Advocate and Shri Gaurav Gadge, Advocate
  for the petitioners.
  Shri A.S.Fulzele, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4.

                               .....

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & ANIL S. KILOR, JJ DATE : JUNE 18, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

1. Hearing was conducted through video conferencing and the

learned counsel agreed that the audio and video quality was proper.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

Additional G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 4, who appeared by waiving

notice. There is no need to issue notice to respondent no.5, as no

relief is claimed against it.

3. Heard. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

4. Respondent no.2 is directed to decide representation of

the petitioner dated 29th January 2020, in accordance with law

within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order.

5. Rule accordingly. No costs.

(ANIL S. KILOR, J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J)

ambulkar