Bombay High Court
Digambar Kashinath Dhokane vs State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary ... on 20 April, 2021
Author: S. M. Modak
Bench: S.B. Shukre, S. M. Modak
2WP 1577.2021.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 1577/2021
Digambar Kashinath Dhokane
..VS..
State of Maharashtra and ors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order__________________________________________________________
Shri R.N. Ghuge, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. K.S. Joshi, Incharge GP for respondent nos. 1 to 4
Shri M.V. Samarth, Senior Advocate a/w. Shri C.M. Samarth,
Advocate for respondent nos. 5 and 6
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATED : 20/04/2021
Hearing was conducted through Video
Conferencing and all the learned Advocates agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.
2. We have heard Shri Ghuge, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri M.V. Samarth, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Shri C.M. Samarth, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6 and also Mrs. K.S. Joshi, learned Incharge G.P. for respondent nos. 2 to 4. SMGate ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2021 21:39:17 ::: 2WP 1577.2021.odt 2
3. Shri M.V. Samarth, learned Senior Advocate for respondent nos. 5 and 6 has submitted that it has never been the intention of respondent nos. 5 and 6 to not to comply with the directions given by this Court in it's order dated 06.04.2021. He also submits that this Court should also consider the position of respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the light of the earlier order passed by the Project Officer. He submits that after closing down of the Ashram School where the petitioner was working, in the year 2016, the petitioner was directed by the Project Officer to be absorbed in atleast five aided Ashram Schools and none of the Schools complied with the order passed by the Project Officer. He further submits that no action, however, was taken against those five aided Ashram Schools by the Project Officer and now, it is only respondent nos. 5 and 6, who are being held responsible for the non-compliance with the orders. According to him, this is not a fair deal being handed out to respondent nos. 5 and 6.
SMGate ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2021 21:39:17 ::: 2WP 1577.2021.odt 3
4. We would certainly consider the grievance so raised by respondent nos. 5 and 6 but, we would also say that at the same time that just because the earlier Aided Schools which were bound to comply with the order of the Project Officer, had not complied with his order would not give any right to respondent nos. 5 and 6 to also defy the order impugned in the matter. The principle of equality, it is a well settled law, does not operate in a negative way in the sense that if no punishment is given to one criminal, the other criminal cannot say that no punishment be given to him.
5. Therefore, respondent nos. 5 and 6 would be obliged in law to comply with the order passed by the Project Officer and let the petitioner join their aided Ashram School. So far, the petitioner has not been permitted to join the aided Ashram School of respondent nos. 5 and 6. Ordinarily, we would have taken it seriously but, considering the prevailing situation, we are willing to grant further time to respondent nos. 5 and 6 to comply with the order of the Project Officer and also direction of SMGate ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2021 21:39:17 ::: 2WP 1577.2021.odt 4 this Court given in order dated 06.04.2021 and accordingly, we grant further two weeks time to respondent nos. 5 and 6 to make necessary compliance in the matter. If, no compliance is made by respondent nos. 5 and 6 within extended period of time, serious action including coercive action shall follow.
6. As regards the contention of unfair treatment being given to respondent nos. 5 and 6 by the Project Officer, we would say that certainly an explanation in this regard is required from respondent no. 4 to this Court and also to respondent nos. 5 and 6. The respondent no. 4 is Officer of Government and, therefore, it is his first and foremost duty to act fairly, without any arbitrariness and in a manner as would show that he has respect for the principle of rule of law. The law would expect that respondent no. 4 takes action against those aided Ashram Schools, which had not complied with his orders regarding absorption of the petitioner in their Schools. The respondent no. 4, shall, therefore, file his detailed reply in the matter on or before next date. SMGate ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2021 21:39:17 ::: 2WP 1577.2021.odt 5
7. The learned Incharge G.P., on instructions, assures on behalf of respondent no. 4 that respondent no. 4 shall positively file reply on or before next date.
8. Stand over after three weeks.
JUDGE JUDGE
SMGate
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2021 21:39:17 :::