Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

The Security Printing And Minting ... vs Pramod Prakash Borade on 24 November, 2021

Author: M. S. Karnik

Bench: Dipankar Datta, M. S. Karnik

                                                         3-WP.6353.2008


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 WRIT PETITION NO. 6353 OF 2008
                             WITH
               CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2362 OF 2015
                             WITH
               CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2239 OF 2015
                              AND
             INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 8 OF 2021

The Security Printing and                   }
Mining Corporation of India Ltd.            }
and Anr.                                    }   Petitioner
         versus
Pramod Prakash Borade                       }   Respondent


Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni-Advocate General with
Ms. Devyani Deshmukh, Ms. Soniya Putta, Ms.
Arya Bile and Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/b. M/s.
Solomon and Co. for the petitioner.

Mr. Kishor S. Patil with Mr. Nikhil M. Pujari i/b.
Mr. P. N. Joshi for the respondent in writ petition
and CAW/2361/2015 and for the applicant in
CAW/2239/2015 and IAST/8/2021.


                    CORAM :- DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
                             M. S. KARNIK, J.

DATE :- NOVEMBER 24, 2021 PC :-

1. We have heard Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned Advocate General for the State of Maharashtra representing the petitioners and Mr. Patil, learned advocate for the respondent at some length.
Page 1 of 2

J.V.Salunke,PS 3-WP.6353.2008

2. Prima facie, we are satisfied that the order of the Tribunal under challenge in this writ petition is indefensible. However, Mr. Patil has brought to our notice certain documents received by the respondent through the machinery of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which suggest that certain appointments on compassionate ground might have been made in breach of the order of this Court dated 18 th June 2009.

3. Although upholding the contention of Mr. Kumbhakoni and setting aside the order under challenge is an available option, we need to be absolutely sure that the petitioners have not committed contempt of the order dated 18th June 2009.

4. With that in view, we adjourn hearing of the writ petition. The writ petition, together with all connected applications including contempt petition, if any, be listed once again on 8th December 2021 for further consideration.

5. The petitioners shall file an affidavit pleading that after the order dated 18th June 2009, no appointments on compassionate ground have been made in breach of such order.

SALUNKE JV Digitally signed (M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) by SALUNKE J V Date: 2021.11.25 10:57:23 +0530 Page 2 of 2 J.V.Salunke,PS