Ravindra S. Mandrekar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 5676 Bom

                                  1/3                              17-WP-308-16.odt

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.308 OF 2016

    Ravindra S. Mandrekar                                .... Petitioner

                     versus

    State of Maharashtra & Anr.                          .... Respondents
                                        .......

    •       Mr. Rajiv Patil, Senior Advocate a/w Onkar v. Warange a/w
             Saurabh Raut, Advocate for Petitioner.
    •       Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for the State/Respondent.
    •       Smt. Madhuri More, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (MCGM).

                                  CORAM    : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
                                  DATE     : 16th JUNE, 2023

    P.C. :


    1.               The Petitioner challenges the order of issuance of

         process against the Petitioner who is an Engineer.



    2.               Learned Senior Counsel states that the Petitioner wants

         to challenge the vires of the amendment to section 2 sub-section

         4 defining Commercial Establishment, wherein the category of

         Engineer is included vide amendment in the year 1977. He



Nesarikar




   ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2023                  ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2023 22:22:02 :::
                                2/3                             17-WP-308-16.odt

      relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the

      case of Narendra Keshrichand Fuladi & Anr. Vs. The State of

      Maharashtra, as reported in 1985(1) Bom. C.R. 460, wherein

      the category of legal profession was stuck down from the said

      definition. He submitted that the said reasoning can be applied

      to the Engineers. Therefore, leave to carry out necessary

      amendment for that purpose is granted. Amendment shall be

      carried out within a period of two weeks from today. After such

      amendment is carried out, obviously the Petition will lie before

      the Division Bench. The office to take steps to place it before the

      appropriate Bench after the amendment is carried out.



 3.               The complaint mentions that there was sanction u/s

      60(1) of the Shops and Establishment Act, 1848. However,

      complaint annexed to this Petition is not accompanied with such

      sanction. The cognizance could not have been taken without

      such sanction. The complaint is in a cyclostyle format and

      appears to have been filed mechanically. Therefore, the

      Petitioner has made out a case for grant of ad-interim relief.




::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2023                 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2023 22:22:02 :::
                                       3/3                               17-WP-308-16.odt




 4.               Hence, the following order :


                                            ORDER

(i) Leave to amend, as mentioned earlier, is granted to be carried out within a period of two weeks from today.

(ii) After that, the office shall place the matter before the appropriate Division Bench.

(iii) Till such steps are taken, there shall be ad-

interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c).

(iv) If no amendment is carried out, place this matter before this Court for further consideration after three weeks.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)