Bombay High Court
WP/2226/1994 of Vs on 15 June 1994
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2226 OF 1994 Raju Z. Moray ..... ..... ...Appellant V/s University of Bombay & Ors. ... ... .... .......Respondents. Mr.Raju Z. More Petitionerinperson. Mr.R.A.Rodriques, Adv. For reespondent No.1.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2226 OF 1994
Raju Z. Moray .....V/sUniversity of Bombay & Ors. ..........
........Appellant.......Respondents.
Mr.Raju Z. More Petitionerinperson.
Mr.R.A.Rodriques, Adv. For reespondent No.1.
Mr.J.B.Shaluja, AGP for Respondent.
CORAM:J.N.PATEL ACTINGC.J.AND
B.R.GAVAI, J.
7[th] January, 2010.
PC:
The petitioner who is legal practitioner has challenged the validity of section 64 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The petitioner has contended that section 64 which debars a legal practitioner from appearing on behalf of any party in any proceedings before the Tribunal is ultra vires of Article 19(1)(G) of the Constitution of India. Several other grounds are also raised challenging the validity of the said provison.
2. It is also contended by the petitioner that under section 42(g) of the Old Universities Act legal practitioner was permitted to appear with special permission of the Tribunal.
3. Shri Moray who appears in person states that though there is bar under section 64 of the said Act right from its inception learned Presiding Officers who have presided over the Tribunal are permitting the legal practitioners to appear with leave of the Tribunal. He therefore submits that as of now there is no necessity to decide the challenges raised in the petition. He further submits that in the event if legal practitioners are not permitted to appear before the learned Tribunal the petitioner may be permitted to raise grounds raised in the present petition.
4. In view of the statement made on behalf of the petitioner we do not find it necessary to go into the merits of the grounds raised in this petition. The petition is therefore disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to raise the grounds raised in the present petition as and when occasion so arises. Needless to add that disposal of this writ petition would not come in way of present petitioner in raising the grounds raised in present petition. Writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.
(ACTING C.J.)
(B.R. GAVAI, J.)