{"id":143448,"date":"2011-06-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-06-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011"},"modified":"2018-01-18T05:30:16","modified_gmt":"2018-01-18T00:00:16","slug":"the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011","title":{"rendered":"The Secretary vs The Presiding Officer on 16 June, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
The Secretary vs The Presiding Officer on 16 June, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: R. M. Savant<\/div>\n
     judg-wp1426.11.odt                                                             1\/6\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n                          WRIT PETITION NO.1426\/2011\n\n     PETITIONERS :-        1) The Secretary, Pratibha Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,\n                              Januna, Tah. Barshitakli, District Akola. \n\n\n\n\n                                               \n                          2) The Principal, Gulam Nabi Azad Arts and\n                             Commerce College, Barshitakli, \n                             Tah. Barshitakli, District Akola.     \n\n\n\n\n                                    \n                                ...VERSUS... \n                    \n     RESPONDENTS :- 1.  The Presiding Officer, \n                        The University and College Tribunal, \n                        Nagpur. \n                   \n                          2. Ravindra S\/o Jayotiram Bhatkar,\n                             aged about 39 years, Occupation-Service,\n                             R\/o Gokul Apartment, Gokul Colony, \n      \n\n                             Akola, Tah. And District Akola. \n   \n\n\n\n                                        AND\n\n\n                          WRIT PETITION NO.1427\/2011\n\n\n\n\n\n     PETITIONERS :-        1) The Secretary, Pratibha Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,\n                              Januna, Tah. Barshitakli, District Akola. \n\n                          2) The Principal, Gulam Nabi Azad Arts and\n                             Commerce College, Barshitakli, \n\n\n\n\n\n                             Tah. Barshitakli, District Akola.     \n\n                                ...VERSUS... \n\n     RESPONDENTS :- 1.  The Presiding Officer, \n                        The University and College Tribunal, \n                        Nagpur. \n\n\n\n\n                                                ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:21:39 :::\n      judg-wp1426.11.odt                                                                               2\/6\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                          \n                                2. Mufiz Khan Mehboob Khan,\n                                   aged about __ years, Occupation-Service,\n                                   R\/o Main Road, Bazar Line, Barshi Takli \n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n                                   Tahsil Barshi Takli, District Akola. \n\n     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n<\/pre>\n
                 Shi P. C. Madkholkar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
\n               Smt. Anjali Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n
     —————————————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
                                                   CORAM : R. M. SAVANT J.<\/p>\n
\n                                                   DATED   : 16.06.2011 \n\n\n\n\n                                               \n     O R A L    J U D G M E N T\n                         \n                        \n     1)        Rule   with   the   consent   of   the   parties   made   returnable   forthwith   and \n\n     heard. \n\n\n     2)        The above petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India \n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     takes exception to the common order dated 29\/10\/2010 passed by the College <\/p>\n
     Tribunal,   Nagpur,   by   which   order   the   Appeals   filed   by   the   respondent   No.1 <\/p>\n
     under Section 59 of The Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 came to be partly <\/p>\n
     allowed and the petitioner-management, which was the respondent No.1 in the <\/p>\n
     Appeals was directed to conduct a fresh enquiry against the appellant i.e. the <\/p>\n
     respondent No.2 in each of the above petitions from the stage as was prevailing <\/p>\n
     on   31\/05\/2006   i.e.   after   the   application   to   allow   cross-examination   of   the <\/p>\n
     witnesses produced by the presenting officer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3)        The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above petitions are <\/p>\n
     stated thus.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:21:39 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      judg-wp1426.11.odt                                                                              3\/6<\/p>\n
              The respondent No.2 in each of the above petitions were the employees <\/p>\n
     of the petitioner management, which is a public trust (The respondent No.2 in <\/p>\n
     each   of   the   petitions   would   be   referred   to   as   the   “said   respondents”).     The <\/p>\n
     respondent   in   Writ   Petition   No.1426\/2011   was   employed   as   clerk   and   the <\/p>\n
     respondent   No.2   in   Writ   Petition   No.1427\/2011   was   employed   as   Library <\/p>\n
     Assistant.  The said respondents  in each of the petitions were chargesheeted by <\/p>\n
     the   petitioner   management   and   enquiry   was   commenced   against   them.\n<\/p>\n
     Pursuant   to   the   gamut   of   processes   being   completed   by   the   management   in <\/p>\n
     respect of issuance of chargesheet and constitution of enquiry committee, etc., it <\/p>\n
     appears   that   an   enquiry   against   the   said   respondents   was   completed   on <\/p>\n
     05\/07\/2006, pursuant to which the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the <\/p>\n
     petitioner management. Thereafter show cause notices came to be issued to the <\/p>\n
     said respondents in each of the petitions on or about 07\/07\/2006.   The said <\/p>\n
     respondents on receipt of the said show cause notices challenged the same by <\/p>\n
     filing  a  complaint   under   Section  28  read  with  Item  1  of  Schedule   IV  of The <\/p>\n
     Maharashtra   Recognition   of   Trade   Unions   And   Prevention   of   Unfair   Labour <\/p>\n
     Practices Act, 1971 and filed an application for stay under Section 30 (2) of the <\/p>\n
     said Act seeking stay to the effect and operation of the show cause notices dated <\/p>\n
     07\/07\/2006   during   the   pendency   of   the   complaint.     The   concerned   Labour <\/p>\n
     Court rejected the application filed in the complaint by each of the respondent <\/p>\n
     No.2 herein for interim relief.  It is after the rejection of the interim relief by the <\/p>\n
     Labour Court by order dated 11\/09\/2006, that the termination order came to be <\/p>\n
     served on the said respondents on 29\/09\/2006.  The said respondents thereafter <\/p>\n
     filed revision applications against the order dated 11\/09\/2006, by which stay <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:21:39 :::<\/span>
\n      judg-wp1426.11.odt                                                                           4\/6<\/p>\n
     came to be refused by the Labour Court.   The said revision applications were <\/p>\n
     dismissed by the Industrial Court.   As mentioned above, the termination order <\/p>\n
     was already served on the said respondents on 29\/09\/2006. After the dismissal <\/p>\n
     of  their revision  applications,  the  said respondents  filed writ  petition  bearing <\/p>\n
     Nos.6150\/2006 and 6146\/2006, which came to be dismissed by this Court by <\/p>\n
     order dated 29\/01\/2007.  The respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.1426\/2011 <\/p>\n
     thereafter filed Complaint U.L.P. No.27\/2006 in which a direction was sought <\/p>\n
     against the petitioner management seeking withdrawal of the termination order <\/p>\n
     dated 29\/09\/2006 and permission to join duty till 31 st October, 2006.  The said <\/p>\n
     application also came to be rejected by the Labour Court on 30\/10\/2006.   It <\/p>\n
     appears that  much  after  this, the  Appeals were filed  by the said respondents <\/p>\n
     before   the   College   Tribunal   against   the   said   termination   order   dated <\/p>\n
     29\/09\/2006.   In the said Appeals the termination was challenged  inter alia  on <\/p>\n
     various   grounds   urged   in   the   Appeals,   which   were   mainly   relating   to   the <\/p>\n
     irregularities   in   the   manner   in   which   the   enquiry   was   conducted   by   the <\/p>\n
     petitioner   management   and   thereby   alleging   violation   of   the   principles   of <\/p>\n
     natural justice.  It is required to be noted that the remedy of Appeal is provided <\/p>\n
     under Section 59 of The Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.  The said provision <\/p>\n
     is reproduced as under :-\n<\/p>\n
                      It is postulated in the proviso to Section 59 that, “no such  <\/p>\n
             appeal shall lie to the Tribunal in any case where the matter has
\n             already   been   decided   by   a   court   or   Tribunal   of   competent
\n             jurisdiction or is pending before such court or Tribunal on the date
\n             of   commencement   of   this   Act   or   where   the   order   of   dismissal,
\n             removal, otherwise termination of service or reduction in rank was
\n             passed by the management at any time before the date on which  <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:21:39 :::<\/span>
\n      judg-wp1426.11.odt                                                                          5\/6<\/p>\n
             this Act comes into force and in which case the period of filing an
\n             appeal has expired.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4)      In the instant petitions the conspectus of facts as narrated above ex facie <\/p>\n
     disclose that against the show cause notices issued to the said respondents, they <\/p>\n
     had invoked the provisions of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 by filing a complaint <\/p>\n
     and thereafter had pursued the statutory remedy as provided under the said Act, <\/p>\n
     even after the passing  of  the  termination order  dated 29\/09\/2006,   the  said <\/p>\n
     respondents had also approached this Court as indicated above by way of Writ <\/p>\n
     Petition Nos.6150\/2006 and 6146\/2006 on the denial of the interim reliefs to <\/p>\n
     them.   In my view, therefore, in the context of the proviso to Section 59, the <\/p>\n
     consideration of the said conspectus of facts was germane to the consideration <\/p>\n
     as to whether the petitioners were entitled at all to file the Appeal before the <\/p>\n
     College Tribunal.  It is required to be noted that though the complaint U.L.P. filed <\/p>\n
     by the respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.1427\/2011 has been withdrawn on <\/p>\n
     16\/03\/2011   that   would   not   further   the   case   of   the   respondent   No.1   in   any <\/p>\n
     manner in so far as the maintainability of the Appeal is concerned. In so far as <\/p>\n
     the respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.1426\/2011 is concerned, the complaint <\/p>\n
     U.L.P. filed by him is yet pending.\n<\/p>\n
     5)      The impugned order of the College Tribunal does not disclose that the <\/p>\n
     College Tribunal has considered the said aspect of the matter more so when the <\/p>\n
     said respondents had themselves pointed out the filing of the said proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     In fact, a reading of the order discloses that the College Tribunal has not even <\/p>\n
     adverted to the said facts and has proceeded to decide the Appeal on merits <\/p>\n
     oblivious of the said previous proceedings filed by the said respondents which <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:21:39 :::<\/span>
\n      judg-wp1426.11.odt                                                                       6\/6<\/p>\n
     would have a bearing on the maintainability of the Appeals before it.\n<\/p>\n
     6)       In my view, the consideration of the filing of the proceedings by the said <\/p>\n
     respondents by invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the M.R.T.U.\n<\/p>\n
     &   P.U.L.P.   Act,   1971   was   a   relevant   consideration.   In   absence   of   which <\/p>\n
     consideration, the impugned order of the College Tribunal can only be stated to <\/p>\n
     be vitiated.  In that view of the matter, the above writ petitions would have to be <\/p>\n
     allowed.   The impugned common order passed by the College Tribunal dated <\/p>\n
     29\/10\/2010 in Appeal Nos.6-A\/2007 and 7-A\/2007 is set aside and the Appeals <\/p>\n
     are remanded back to the College Tribunal for a  de novo  consideration, after <\/p>\n
     taking into consideration the aspect of the earlier proceedings filed by the said <\/p>\n
     respondents by way of complaint U.L.Ps. and after so taking into consideration <\/p>\n
     the said aspect, to decide whether the said respondents were entitled to file the <\/p>\n
     Appeals before it.\n<\/p>\n
     7)       The learned counsel for the parties make a statement that they would <\/p>\n
     appear before the College Tribunal on 11th July, 2011.  On remand the College <\/p>\n
     Tribunal to decide the Appeals as expeditiously as possible and within a period <\/p>\n
     of four months from 11th July, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
     8)       Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with parties to <\/p>\n
     bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             JUDGE <\/p>\n
     KHUNTE<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:21:39 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court The Secretary vs The Presiding Officer on 16 June, 2011 Bench: R. M. Savant judg-wp1426.11.odt 1\/6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1426\/2011 PETITIONERS :- 1) The Secretary, Pratibha Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Januna, Tah. Barshitakli, District Akola. 2) The Principal, Gulam Nabi Azad Arts and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-143448","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Secretary vs The Presiding Officer on 16 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Secretary vs The Presiding Officer on 16 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-06-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-18T00:00:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Secretary vs The Presiding Officer on 16 June, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-18T00:00:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1278,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011\",\"name\":\"The Secretary vs The Presiding Officer on 16 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-18T00:00:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Secretary vs The Presiding Officer on 16 June, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Secretary vs The Presiding Officer on 16 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Secretary vs The Presiding Officer on 16 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-06-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-18T00:00:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Secretary vs The Presiding Officer on 16 June, 2011","datePublished":"2011-06-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-18T00:00:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011"},"wordCount":1278,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011","name":"The Secretary vs The Presiding Officer on 16 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-06-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-18T00:00:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-16-june-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Secretary vs The Presiding Officer on 16 June, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143448","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=143448"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143448\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=143448"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=143448"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=143448"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}