SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Bom) 1047

H.L.GOKHALE, R.S.DALVI
NEELIMA SADANAND VARTAK – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent


Judgment

H. L. GOKHALE, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition invoking Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the Notification dated 1st June, 2004 issued by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appointing respondent No. 8 as the public Prosecutor for the District of Pune for a period of 3 years. The notification is sought to be challenged as being in breach of section 24 of the code of Criminal Procedure which contains the provision for the appointment of public Prosecutors in the Districts under sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) thereof.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has been working as a Law Officer for the State in Pune district right from 1986. Presently, she is working as Additional Public prosecutor. Respondent No. 1 to this petition is the State of Maharashtra, respondent No. 2 is the Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, respondent No. 3 is the Minister for Law and Justice, respondent No. 4 is the minister for State of Law and respondent No. 5 is the Advocate General. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are the then Cabinet Minister of Law and Judiciary and the Minister for State, Law and Judiciary, respectively when the impugned notification was issued. Respondent No. 9 to the p





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top