A summary of the important cases from the causelist of the Bombay High Court..LIST OF CASES.Bombay High Court.Ravindra Umakant Talpe And Anr v. State of Maharashtra & AnrQamar Nasreen Abdul Kareem v. Dum Dum Central Correctional Home & Ors.Sanjiv G Punalekar S/o Gajanan Punalekar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.Manish Liladhar Bhangale v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.1. Ravindra Umakant Talpe And Anr v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.[Item 901 Court 13- CRPIL/69/2013].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.This PIL addresses the issue of lack of basic facilities in ashram shalas all over Maharashtra. Ashram Shalas are residential schools for children in tribal and rural areas. The petition alleges that basic amenities, medical facility, sanitation etc are lacking in these schools..Today in court: The state government has filed a detailed reply in this matter, recording all the relevant data. The matter will now be listed for directions in four weeks..2. Qamar Nasreen Abdul Kareem v. Dum Dum Central Correctional Home & Ors..[Item 5 Court 54- WP(Cri)/4249/2014].Bench: Naresh H Patil, PD Naik JJ.The petitioner’s son was being brought over to a MCOCA court in Mumbai from West Bengal via train. The police contend that he jumped out of the train passing between Raigarh Railway Station to Kharsiya, and absconded. Although an SIT was constituted to find him, no progress has been made so far..Today in court: Patil J directed the State of Maharashtra and the State of Chattisgarh to file a reply in two weeks as to what steps have been taken to trace Naeem Abdul Qamar..3. Sanjiv G Punalekar S/o Gajanan Punalekar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors..[Item 14 Court 13- PIL(OS)/102/2012].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.This PIL seeks the court’s intervention in validating records of NGO’s all over the state. The petitioner states that NGO’s get land at concessional rates yet no steps are taken to ascertain whether they are following the conditions by which these concessions were granted..Today in court: State failed to file a detailed affidavit in the matter, a fresh affidavit providing all relevant data has been directed to be filed within 3 weeks..4. Manish Liladhar Bhangale v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.[Item 26 Court 54- WP(Cri)/1912/2016].Bench: Naresh H Patil, PD Naik JJ.The petitioner alleges that former revenue minister, Eknath Khadse has been in touch with terrorist Dawood Ibrahim. The petitioner further claims that a proper investigation is yet to be conducted in the matter, despite the fact that the Anti-Terrorist Squad has strong evidence in this regard..Today in court: Sandesh Sawant, appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the former revenue minister was in touch with a known terorrist, it was a matter of national security and this case needs to be investigated..Not satisfied with the documents annexed to substantiate this claim, Patil J asked the petitioners whether there was any additional information, to which their lawyer replied in the affirmative. Subhash Jha, looking to intervene in the matter, asked the PIL to be dismissed stating that it was meant to gain publicity and was not in public interest. Patil J did not entertain this request and asked the petitioners to attach all additional documents and adjourned the matter for 4 weeks. Senior Counsel Nitin Pradhan appeared for the state.
A summary of the important cases from the causelist of the Bombay High Court..LIST OF CASES.Bombay High Court.Ravindra Umakant Talpe And Anr v. State of Maharashtra & AnrQamar Nasreen Abdul Kareem v. Dum Dum Central Correctional Home & Ors.Sanjiv G Punalekar S/o Gajanan Punalekar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.Manish Liladhar Bhangale v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.1. Ravindra Umakant Talpe And Anr v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.[Item 901 Court 13- CRPIL/69/2013].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.This PIL addresses the issue of lack of basic facilities in ashram shalas all over Maharashtra. Ashram Shalas are residential schools for children in tribal and rural areas. The petition alleges that basic amenities, medical facility, sanitation etc are lacking in these schools..Today in court: The state government has filed a detailed reply in this matter, recording all the relevant data. The matter will now be listed for directions in four weeks..2. Qamar Nasreen Abdul Kareem v. Dum Dum Central Correctional Home & Ors..[Item 5 Court 54- WP(Cri)/4249/2014].Bench: Naresh H Patil, PD Naik JJ.The petitioner’s son was being brought over to a MCOCA court in Mumbai from West Bengal via train. The police contend that he jumped out of the train passing between Raigarh Railway Station to Kharsiya, and absconded. Although an SIT was constituted to find him, no progress has been made so far..Today in court: Patil J directed the State of Maharashtra and the State of Chattisgarh to file a reply in two weeks as to what steps have been taken to trace Naeem Abdul Qamar..3. Sanjiv G Punalekar S/o Gajanan Punalekar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors..[Item 14 Court 13- PIL(OS)/102/2012].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.This PIL seeks the court’s intervention in validating records of NGO’s all over the state. The petitioner states that NGO’s get land at concessional rates yet no steps are taken to ascertain whether they are following the conditions by which these concessions were granted..Today in court: State failed to file a detailed affidavit in the matter, a fresh affidavit providing all relevant data has been directed to be filed within 3 weeks..4. Manish Liladhar Bhangale v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.[Item 26 Court 54- WP(Cri)/1912/2016].Bench: Naresh H Patil, PD Naik JJ.The petitioner alleges that former revenue minister, Eknath Khadse has been in touch with terrorist Dawood Ibrahim. The petitioner further claims that a proper investigation is yet to be conducted in the matter, despite the fact that the Anti-Terrorist Squad has strong evidence in this regard..Today in court: Sandesh Sawant, appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the former revenue minister was in touch with a known terorrist, it was a matter of national security and this case needs to be investigated..Not satisfied with the documents annexed to substantiate this claim, Patil J asked the petitioners whether there was any additional information, to which their lawyer replied in the affirmative. Subhash Jha, looking to intervene in the matter, asked the PIL to be dismissed stating that it was meant to gain publicity and was not in public interest. Patil J did not entertain this request and asked the petitioners to attach all additional documents and adjourned the matter for 4 weeks. Senior Counsel Nitin Pradhan appeared for the state.