1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2142/2010 (Ramkrushna Nanaji Gourkar VERSUS Mahavir Shikshan Prasar Samiti & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Smt. Neeta Jog, counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.G. Kulkarni, counsel for the R-1 to 3. Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, A.G.P. for the R-4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 27 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the Departmental Enquiry initiated by the respondent no.1-Mahavir Shikshan Prasar Samiti by declaring the same to be mala fide and without following the rules and procedure prescribed. The petition is premature as the same raises a challenge to the Departmental Enquiry initiated by the respondent no.1. Though the petitioner has raised certain grounds of mala fides and also in regard to the violation of the provisions of Rule 36 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, the said facts have been denied by the respondent nos.1 to 3. Apart from the fact that the petition is premature, we find that several disputed questions of facts arise for determination in this writ petition. 2 Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE APTE