A summary of the important cases from the causelist of the Bombay High Court..LIST OF CASES.Bombay High Court.Dhananjay Sadashiv Pisal v. State of MaharashtraVihar Durve v. State of MaharashtraJanhit Manch & Anr v. Union of India & 4 Ors.Mahesh Vijay Bedekar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.Ashish Khetan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors..1. Dhananjay Sadashiv Pisal v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 1 Court 13- PIL(OS)/67/2015].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.Petitioner is asking for the State’s public health department to be held accountable for the prevention and control of communicable diseases in Maharashtra. Previously, the BMC was directed to state the steps taken for implementation of the guidelines issued by the Maharashtra Communicable Diseases Prevention and Control Technical committee..Today in court: After GP AB Vagyani informed the court that the state intends to create a rapid response mechanism, Oka J said the committee had issued 9 specific guidelines which are yet to be dealt with..The state has been directed to ensure compliance with the guidelines and submit a status report by July 4..2. Vihar Durve v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 2 Court 13- PIL(C)/188/2015].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.The PIL involves two, separate issues. One, the pensionary benefits that accrue to judicial officers, and whether these benefits will be the same as that drawn by other State officers. In this regard, the Shetty Commission had made a certain set of recommendations that were accepted by the Supreme Court. However, it is not clear whether the State has implemented these recommendations..The second issue relates to the construction of a new Family Court building in Pune. The High Court had earlier asked that the proposal for release of funds be placed before the state legislature..Sandeep Jalan had appeared for the petitioner, and GP AB Vagyani for the state..Today in court: GP AB Vagyani submitted that the state had written to the central government seeking clarification as to whether judges can be exempted from the contributory pension scheme and the old pension scheme can be applicable for them. Centre’s response is still awaited..On the issue of the Family court building, Oka J asked why the state is yet to shift these courts into the new building as three floors are ready. Vagyani said there is some plumbing work that is still pending, some furniture still needs to be procured. The matter was adjourned and will now be heard next Friday..3. Janhit Manch & Anr v Union of India & 4 Ors..[Item 7 Court 13- PIL(OS)/89/2010].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.The PIL seeks proper implementation of safety and security measures at all beaches in the state. A government resolution dated 8/9/2006 was issued but it is yet to be effectively implemented..Today in court: GP AB Vagyani submitted data regarding beaches in the state. The affidavit states that there are a total of 72 beaches in the state. 19 in the district of Sindhudurg alone where only 2 beaches have lifeguards..Despite earlier orders for appointing lifeguards on every beach, the state is still appointing temporary lifeguards. Oka J said:.This is not done. Provide the minutes of thegovernment meeting that took place on this issue on March 3. Enough time has been given to you. The GR is 10 years old and is yet to be implemented. .Appearing for the petitioners, counsel Jamshed Mistry said a large number of accidents have occured on these beaches and the state is trying to shift the burden on BMC..Finally, the bench directed the state to ensure all compliances by July 31..4. Mahesh Vijay Bedekar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.[Item 8 Court 13- PIL(C)/173/2010].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.A PIL seeking directions to the state for the implementation of Noise Pollution Rules. A contempt notice was issued against the Additional Chief Secretary KP Bakshi for non-compliance of an earlier order directing the state to procure noise decibel meters..Today in court: Hearing regarding the contempt notice will be on July 1, today senior counsel Sanjeev Gorwarkar, appearing for the petitioner submitted that an NGO is willing to donate 100 noise decibel meters but the bench left the decision on the state’s discretion citing logistical reasons like maintainence and warranty of these devices..All pending issues in the PIL will now be heard on July 8 as the matter will be listed along with other connected matters for final hearing..5. Ashish Khetan v. State of Maharshtra & Ors..[Item 23 Court 13- CRPIL/19/2014].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.Senior counsel Mihir Desai, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the investigating agencies in the Malegaon blast case, the train blasts on 7/11/06 and the German Bakery Blast case had conducted their probe in a similar manner. The petitioner seeks an enquiry to be conducted by a retired judge of the High Court..Oka J had said that before the appeals in these cases are disposed off, a writ court cannot look into these aspects..Read our previous report for more details..Today in court: PP Raja B Thakre submitted that the state government has already filed an appeal in the apex court against the HC order in the German Bakery blast case. Also an appeal against the discharge of 9 accused in the 2006 Malegaon blast case has been filed in the High Court..Citing the pendency of these appeals, Oka J disposed off this petition stating that none of the prayers in the petition survive.
A summary of the important cases from the causelist of the Bombay High Court..LIST OF CASES.Bombay High Court.Dhananjay Sadashiv Pisal v. State of MaharashtraVihar Durve v. State of MaharashtraJanhit Manch & Anr v. Union of India & 4 Ors.Mahesh Vijay Bedekar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.Ashish Khetan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors..1. Dhananjay Sadashiv Pisal v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 1 Court 13- PIL(OS)/67/2015].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.Petitioner is asking for the State’s public health department to be held accountable for the prevention and control of communicable diseases in Maharashtra. Previously, the BMC was directed to state the steps taken for implementation of the guidelines issued by the Maharashtra Communicable Diseases Prevention and Control Technical committee..Today in court: After GP AB Vagyani informed the court that the state intends to create a rapid response mechanism, Oka J said the committee had issued 9 specific guidelines which are yet to be dealt with..The state has been directed to ensure compliance with the guidelines and submit a status report by July 4..2. Vihar Durve v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 2 Court 13- PIL(C)/188/2015].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.The PIL involves two, separate issues. One, the pensionary benefits that accrue to judicial officers, and whether these benefits will be the same as that drawn by other State officers. In this regard, the Shetty Commission had made a certain set of recommendations that were accepted by the Supreme Court. However, it is not clear whether the State has implemented these recommendations..The second issue relates to the construction of a new Family Court building in Pune. The High Court had earlier asked that the proposal for release of funds be placed before the state legislature..Sandeep Jalan had appeared for the petitioner, and GP AB Vagyani for the state..Today in court: GP AB Vagyani submitted that the state had written to the central government seeking clarification as to whether judges can be exempted from the contributory pension scheme and the old pension scheme can be applicable for them. Centre’s response is still awaited..On the issue of the Family court building, Oka J asked why the state is yet to shift these courts into the new building as three floors are ready. Vagyani said there is some plumbing work that is still pending, some furniture still needs to be procured. The matter was adjourned and will now be heard next Friday..3. Janhit Manch & Anr v Union of India & 4 Ors..[Item 7 Court 13- PIL(OS)/89/2010].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.The PIL seeks proper implementation of safety and security measures at all beaches in the state. A government resolution dated 8/9/2006 was issued but it is yet to be effectively implemented..Today in court: GP AB Vagyani submitted data regarding beaches in the state. The affidavit states that there are a total of 72 beaches in the state. 19 in the district of Sindhudurg alone where only 2 beaches have lifeguards..Despite earlier orders for appointing lifeguards on every beach, the state is still appointing temporary lifeguards. Oka J said:.This is not done. Provide the minutes of thegovernment meeting that took place on this issue on March 3. Enough time has been given to you. The GR is 10 years old and is yet to be implemented. .Appearing for the petitioners, counsel Jamshed Mistry said a large number of accidents have occured on these beaches and the state is trying to shift the burden on BMC..Finally, the bench directed the state to ensure all compliances by July 31..4. Mahesh Vijay Bedekar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.[Item 8 Court 13- PIL(C)/173/2010].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.A PIL seeking directions to the state for the implementation of Noise Pollution Rules. A contempt notice was issued against the Additional Chief Secretary KP Bakshi for non-compliance of an earlier order directing the state to procure noise decibel meters..Today in court: Hearing regarding the contempt notice will be on July 1, today senior counsel Sanjeev Gorwarkar, appearing for the petitioner submitted that an NGO is willing to donate 100 noise decibel meters but the bench left the decision on the state’s discretion citing logistical reasons like maintainence and warranty of these devices..All pending issues in the PIL will now be heard on July 8 as the matter will be listed along with other connected matters for final hearing..5. Ashish Khetan v. State of Maharshtra & Ors..[Item 23 Court 13- CRPIL/19/2014].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.Senior counsel Mihir Desai, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the investigating agencies in the Malegaon blast case, the train blasts on 7/11/06 and the German Bakery Blast case had conducted their probe in a similar manner. The petitioner seeks an enquiry to be conducted by a retired judge of the High Court..Oka J had said that before the appeals in these cases are disposed off, a writ court cannot look into these aspects..Read our previous report for more details..Today in court: PP Raja B Thakre submitted that the state government has already filed an appeal in the apex court against the HC order in the German Bakery blast case. Also an appeal against the discharge of 9 accused in the 2006 Malegaon blast case has been filed in the High Court..Citing the pendency of these appeals, Oka J disposed off this petition stating that none of the prayers in the petition survive.
