Mandakini Diwan vs High Court Of Chhattisgarh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 756

VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE
Mandakini Diwan – Appellant
Versus
High Court Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Dinesh Jotwani, Adv. Mr. Dhawesh Pahuja, AOR Mr. Bhargava Baisoya, Adv. Ms. Shruti Singh, Adv. Mr. Shivalika Midha, Adv. Mr. Narendra Bahadur Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Nilesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Saket Gogia, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Prashant Singh, AOR Mr. Avdhesh Kumar Singh, A.A.G. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Adv. Mr. Piyush Yadav, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Singh, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Kurup, AOR Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Adv. Ms. Gauri Goburdhun, Adv. Ms. Aanchal, Adv. Mr. Akhil Hasija, Adv. Mr. Gurjas Singh Narula, Adv. Mr. Arnav Mittal, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AOR Mr. Parth Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal assails the correctness of the order dated 10.05.2023 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Chhattisgarh in W.P.Cr. No.197 of 2016 titled as Mandakini Diwan & Anr. vs. High Court of Chhattisgarh and seven others whereby the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioners therein (appellants herein) to avail the appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum.

3. Before referring to the facts we wish to make it clear that we are not entering into the detailed facts and submissions as advanced by the parties because any observation made by us on such submissions and detailed facts may result into influencing a fair investigation which we are inclined to direct in the present case by an independent agency.

4. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are:

4.1. The respondent no.7 had applied in the Higher Judicial Services of the State of Chhattisgarh against the advertisement issued in the year 2012. Pursuant to which he was selected and appointed in June 2013 as Addl.District Judge, Geedam at Dantewada. Respondent no.7 got married to the deceased on 15.02.2014. However, they had known each other since 2010.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 756

VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEMandakini Diwan – AppellantVersusHigh Court Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent

VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE
Mandakini Diwan – Appellant
Versus
High Court Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent