Bhavlal S/O. Kashiram Indore vs Director General Crpf Hq, New ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5752 Bom

 Judgment                                 1                        W.P.No.1525.2021.odt


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

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 1525 OF 2021


          Bhavlal S/o Kashiram Indore,
          Aged about 51 years, Occu. - Sub Inspector,
          (Ministerial) at CRPF CH Hyderabad
          and presently temporarily at 213 BN (Mah)
          CRPF Nagpur, R/o. Quarter No.30
          Type III, GC CRPF, Hingna Road,
          Nagpur.

                                                                 .... PETITIONER


                                   // VERSUS //


 1)       Director General CRPF HQ, CGO
          Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-03.

 2)       Special Director General SZ CRPF,
          Post Kesogiri, Hyderabad-05.

 3)       Inspector General of Police, WS.
          CRPF CBD, Belapur, Navi Mumbai,
          Maharashtra.

 4)       Dy. Inspector General CRPF
          Range GC. CRPF Camp, Nagpur
                                               .... RESPONDENTS
  ______________________________________________________________
      Shri Mohan Sudame, Advocate for the petitioner.
      Shri S. A. Chaudhari, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
 ______________________________________________________________


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

DATED : 30.03.2021.

Judgment 2 W.P.No.1525.2021.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

1. Hearing is conducted through Video Conferencing and all

the learned Advocates agreed that the audio and visual quality was

proper.

2. Heard Shri Mohan Sudame, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Shri S. A. Chaudhari, learned counsel who appears by

waiving notice for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

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

consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

4. There is a representation made by the petitioner to

respondent No.1 regarding transfer the petitioner from Hyderabad to a

post available at a place within the State of Maharashtra. It is stated by

learned counsel for the petitioner that because of pendency of this

petition, the admission secured by the daughter of the petitioner to

dental course which she intends to pursue from VSPM Dental College,

Hingna, Nagpur has come under threat and, therefore, it is necessary

the representation dated 12.02.2021 be decided by respondents at the

earliest.

Judgment 3 W.P.No.1525.2021.odt

5. Shri Chaudhari, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1

to 4 submits that the respondents would decide the representation

within a reasonable period of time.

6. In view of above, the petition is allowed and respondents

are directed to decide the representation dated 12.02.2021 in

accordance with law within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt

of the order by him.

Rule made absolute in these terms. No costs.

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)

Kirtak