Bombay High Court · 2025-07-25
SMT. GAURI MAHESH NALAWADE vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAH. STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO. LTD. AND ORS.
- Citation / case number
- WP/13614/2018
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Petitioner
- SMT. GAURI MAHESH NALAWADE
- Respondent
- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAH. STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO. LTD. AND ORS.
Judgment text excerpt
1/15 select list not appointed.odt BHARAT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY DASHARATH PANDIT CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Digitally signed by BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2025.08.06 18:06:01 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO.13614 OF 2018 Smt.Gauri Mahesh Nalawade Age 39 years, Occu. : Nil. R/at. 3/69, Sumatinath Apartments, Petitioner Hirji Baug Soc., J.B. Road, Sewri (W), Mumbai 15. Versus 1) The Managing Director, Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. Prakash Ganga, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai5. 2) The Executive Director (HR) Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd., Prakash Ganga, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 51. 3) The Chief General Manager (HR), Respondent Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd., Prakash Ganga, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 51. 4) Mr.Parijatrai V. Kanugo, C/o. The Chief General Manager (HR) Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd., Prakash Ganga, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 51. ---------- Mr.Vaishali Jagdale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Abhijeet Joshi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Yashodeep P. Deshmukh i/b. Mr.Sachin Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.4. ---------- Rajeshri Aher 2/15 select list not appointed.odt CORAM: SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : 25th JULY 2025. Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 appears and states that due to the reasons beyond his control he could not appear on 23rd July 2025 when this matter was called out for hearing. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent no.4 has filed a counter affidavit in this matter and he would only adopt the submissions made on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3 who are the officers under