Abaso Dattatraya Nazirkar And Anr vs State Of Maha. Thr. Sec. Home Dept. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3947 Bom

2023:BHC-AS:12204-DB
             K                                        1/2             15 wp 5298.23 as.doc
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 5298 OF 2023

            Abaso Dattatraya Nazirkar and Anr.                        .....Petitioners
                  V/s.
            State of Maharashtra, thr. Sec.
            Home Dept. And Ors.                                       .....Respondents



            Mr. Sandeep Dere for the Petitioners.
            Mr. B.V. Samant, AGP for the Respondents-State.
            Mr. S.C. Naidu a/w Mr. Dharmnath Avhad, Mr. Pranav Avhad,
            Ms. Divya Yajurvedi, Ms. Darshan Naval for Respondent Nos.4 to 6.



                             CORAM :             S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACTING CJ &
                                                 SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                             DATE :              20th APRIL, 2023.

            P.C. :

1. The Petitioners assail the judgment and order dated 17

March 2023.

2. We have heard Mr. Dere, the learned Advocate for the

Petitioner, Mr. Naidu, the learned Advocate for the Respondent

Nos.4 to 6 and the learned AGP.

3. The Full Bench of the Tribunal has observed that the

Petitioners had filled in forms in multiple units by stating different

K 2/2 15 wp 5298.23 as.doc names and/or the names of their parents though they were

entitled to fill in the form only in one unit.

4. It is not disputed that the Petitioner No.1 had filled in two

forms with change names by misspelling the one whereas the

Petitioner No.2 had given a different email-id in a second

application. It is submitted that if the Petitioners would not have

committed such mistake or would not have misrepresented with

regard to the wrong email id or the name then the second form

would not have been accepted.

5. In the present matter as it is admitted fact that the Petitioner

No.1 changed the spelling of his name in the second Application

and Petitioner No.2 gave an erroneous email-id in the second

Application, this Court would not interfere considering the

conduct of Petitioners.

6. In view of that we do not find any error on the part of the

Tribunal. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners

about the Petitioners in other Writ Petitions in participating only

in one selection process would be considered in the other Writ

Petitions in case there is no misrepresentation.

7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)