w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Dr. Hema Vijay Menon v/s State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary of Higher and Technical Education & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- MAHARASHTRA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L71100MH1982PLC028750

Company & Directors' Information:- MENON AND MENON LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29119MH1969PLC014404

Company & Directors' Information:- VIJAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25199DL1998PTC096860

Company & Directors' Information:- K-EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80301MH2014PTC256056

Company & Directors' Information:- D.R. EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80301DL2006PTC154604

    Writ Petition No. 3288 of 2015

    Decided On, 22 July 2015

    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur

    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE VASANTI A. NAIK & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. BADAR

    For the Petitioner: C.S. Dhore, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R3, T. Udeshi, AGP, R4, A. Bhole, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A. Naik, J.)

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is, whether a mother is entitled to avail maternity leave, though she begets the child through surrogacy.

3. Few facts giving rise to the petition are stated thus:

The petitioner is a highly qualified Lecturer who has participated in several National and International Seminars and Symposiums in law and is often invited as a guest faculty at several institutions to deliver lectures on various subjects of law. On 28.07.2010, the petitioner lost her only son who was 15 years of age. The petitioner and her husband suffered severe mental trauma due to the loss of their only son and decided to bear a child. The petitioner went through five cycles of In Vitro Fertility (IVF) procedures at Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai, to conceive the child, however, due to certain ailments, the petitioner was incapacitated to bear the child and the attempts were unsuccessful. Upon the failure of IVF procedures at Jaslok Hospital at Mumbai, the petitioner was asked by an eminent Doctor at the Jaslok Hospital to opt for the surrogacy procedure. After consultation with her husband, the petitioner decided to have a child through surrogacy arrangement. In furtherance of the said desire, in March 2013, an embryo was successfully transplanted in the womb of a surrogate mother. On 04.12.2014, the surrogate mother went into labour and the petitioner and her husband rushed to Mumbai. The surrogate mother delivered a baby boy and the said child was immediately placed in the hands of the petitioner and her husband. It is worthwhile to mention that the petitioner has spent an amount of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rs. Forty five lakh) for the surrogacy procedure. With a view to look after the newly born baby, the petitioner applied for maternity/ child care leave to the Principal of the respondent No. 4 – College as according to the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to maternity leave in view of the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1981, which recognize the right of a woman to maternity leave and are applicable to the Lecturers like the petitioner. The petitioner also sought support from the Government Resolution dated 28.07.1995, that provides for maternity leave to the adoptive mother in the same manner as is available to a natural mother. The Principal of the respondent No. 4 – College approved the leave and the proposal was forwarded to the Joint Director of Higher Education, for necessary action. To the surprise of the petitioner, the Respondent No. 3 the Joint Director of Higher Education, Nagpur informed the respondent No. 4 – Principal of the College, by the impugned communication dated 07.05.2015, that there was no provision for granting maternity leave to a mother who begets a child through surrogacy procedure, in the Government Resolution dated 28.07.1995. The petitioner has challenged the communication dated 07.05.2015, by this petition.

4. Shri Dhore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an employee mother, like the petitioner, is entitled to maternity leave under the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules, and also in terms of the Government Resolution dated 28.07.1995. It is submitted that merely because the petitioner has begotten a child through surrogacy procedure, maternity leave cannot be denied to the petitioner. It is submitted that the object of providing maternity leave is not only related to the health concerns of the mother but is also related with the health concern and the upbringing of the child. It is submitted that a bond of affection has to be created between the mother and the child in the first year of his/ her birth. It is submitted that there is nothing in the provisions of Rule 74 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules and the Government Resolution dated 28.07.1995 which disentitles the petitioner from availing the maternity leave. It is submitted that the action of the respondent No. 3 in declining permission to the petitioner to avail the maternity leave is arbitrary and discriminatory and the impugned order is liable to the set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the unreported judgment of the Delhi High Court, dated 17.07.2015 in the case of Rama Pande vs. Union of India, which in turn has referred to some of the reported judgments of the other High Courts.

5. Ms. Udeshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, supported the action of the Joint Director of Higher Education and submitted that the Government Resolution dated 28.07.1995 provides for maternity leave to an adoptive mother but it does not provide for maternity leave to a mother, who has secured the child through surrogacy. It is submitted that the Resolution of the Finance Department of the State Government, dated 28.07.1995 was rightly considered by the Joint Director of Higher Education, to refuse maternity leave to the petitioner. It is, however, not disputed that a natural mother and an adoptive mother is entitled to a paid maternity leave for one year from the date of the birth of the child.

6. Shri Bhole, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 – College, supported the case of the petitioner and submitted that it is inappropriate on the part of the respondent No. 3 – Joint Director of Higher Education, Nagpur, to refuse maternity leave to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had begotten the child through surrogacy.

7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the Joint Director of Higher Education, Nagpur, was not justified in refusing maternity leave to the petitioner. According to Oxford English Dictionary, maternity means motherhood. Maternity means the period during pregnancy and shortly after the child's birth. If Maternity means motherhood, it would not be proper to distinguish between a natural and biological mother and a mother who has begotten a child through surrogacy or has adopted a child from the date of his/ her birth. The object of maternity leave is to protect the dignity of motherhood by providing for full and healthy maintenance of the woman and her child. Maternity leave is intended to achieve the object of ensuring social justice to women. Motherhood and childhood both require special attention. Not only are the health issues of the mother and the child considered while providing for maternity leave but the leave is provided for creating a bond of affection between the two. It is said that being a mother is one of the most rewarding jobs on the earth and also one of the most challenging. To distinguish between a mother who begets a child through surrogacy and a natural mother who gives birth to a child, would result in insulting womanhood and the intention of a woman to bring up a child begotten through surrogacy, as her own. A commissioning mother like the petitioner would have the same rights and obligations towards the child as the natural mother. Motherhood never ends on the birth of the child and a commissioning mother like the petitioner cannot be refused paid maternity leave. A woman cannot be discriminated, as far as maternity benefits are concerned, only on the ground that she has obtained the baby through surrogacy. Though the petitioner did not give birth to the child, the child was placed in the secured hands of the petitioner as soon as it was born. A newly born child cannot be left at the mercy of others. A maternity leave to the commissioning mother like the petitioner would be necessary. A newly born child needs rearing and that is the most crucial period during which the child requires the care and attention of his mother. There is a tremendous amount of learning that takes place in the first year of the baby's life, the baby learns a lot too. Also, the bond of affection has to be developed. A mother, as already stated hereinabove, would include a commissioning mother or a mother securing a child through surrogacy. Any other interpretation would result in frustrating the object of providing maternity leave to a mother, who has begotten the child.

8. As rightly pointed out on behalf of the petitioner, there is nothing in Rule 74 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1961, which would disentitle a woman, who has attained motherhood through the surrogacy procedure to maternity leave. Rule 74 provides for maternity leave to a female government employee. We do not find anything in Rule 74 which disentitles the petitioner to maternity leave, like any other female government servant, only because she has attained motherhood through the route of surrogacy procedure. It is worthwhile to note that by the Government Resolution dated 28.07.1995, maternity leave is not only provided to a natural mother but is also provided to an adoptive mother, who adopts a child on its birth. The only reason for refusing maternity leave to the petitioner is that there is nothing in the Government Resolution, dated 28.07.1995 for providing maternity leave to the mother who begets the child through surrogacy. If the Government Resolution, dated 28.07.1995 provides maternity leave to an adoptive mother, it is difficult to gauge why maternity leave should be refused to the mother, who secures the child through surrogacy. In our view, there cannot be any distinction whatsoever between an adoptive mother that adopts a child and a mother that begets a child through a surrogate mother, after implanting an embryo in the womb of the surrogate mother. In our view, the case of the mother who begets a child through surrogacy procedure, by implanting an embryo created by using either the eggs or sperm of the intended parents in the womb of the surrogate mother, would stand on a better footing than the case of an adoptive mother. At least, there cannot be any distinction between the two. Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to motherhood and also the right of every child to full

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

development. If the government can provide maternity leave to an adoptive mother, it is difficult to digest the refusal on the part of the Government to provide maternity leave to a mother who begets a child through the surrogacy procedure. We do not find any propriety in the action on the part of the Joint Director of Higher Education, Nagpur, of rejecting the claim of the petitioner for maternity leave. The action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is clearly arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is useful to refer to the unreported judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rama Pande vs. Union of India, and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in this regard. 9. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 07.05.2015 is quashed and set aside. It is hereby declared that the petitioner is entitled to the maternity leave for a period of one year from the date of the birth of the child i.e. 04.12.2014. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

17-08-2020 Rohit Verma Versus State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Higher Education Lukcnow & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
03-07-2020 Mohd. Quasim Versus P. Vijay Prakash High Court of for the State of Telangana
02-07-2020 Ashok Janardhan Dhumule Versus M/s. Ankur Seeds Private Limited, Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-07-2020 Nagpur Agriculture Equipment Engineers Private Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus Premnath National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-07-2020 State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Department of General Education, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus C.R. Vinod Kumar High Court of Kerala
19-06-2020 Vishwas Utagi & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-06-2020 C.C. Girija & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by the Secretary To Government, General Education Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
17-06-2020 Ministry of Railways Through Divisional Commercial Manager Versus V. Vijay Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-06-2020 Komal Hiwale Versus State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
12-06-2020 Mahesh Sambhaji Chafle Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Akheda Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-06-2020 K.K. Jayasree Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary to Govt., Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
09-06-2020 M/s. Thakur Stone Quarries through its Partner Munesh Hotilal Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Vishnupant Motba Kesarkar Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Versus Principal, College of Engineering, Pune High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-06-2020 Dr. Debajit Das & Another Versus Williamson Magor Education Trust & Others & Others High Court of Gauhati
05-06-2020 Sahyog Homes Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-06-2020 M. Karunya Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 The Correspondent, St.Antony's Girls Primary School, Near Head Police Office, Coimbatore & Others Versus The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Dr. A.K. Sheik Manzoor Versus State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Sachin @ Satish Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-06-2020 Dr. K.Gautham Versus The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-06-2020 Citizen Forum for Equality, a registered NGO, vide registration no:-MH/645/11, through its President Madhukar Ganpat Kukde Versus The State of Maharashtra, through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
29-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad Versus Prabhakar Karbhari Ghatmale & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
29-05-2020 Vijay Ganesh @ Vijay @ Kurangu Vijay Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (IX) Department & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-05-2020 Joe Joseph Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary To Government, Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
27-05-2020 M. Lokesh & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Department of Education, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
27-05-2020 Ajay @ Vijay @ Babu Jaiswal, Chhattisgarh Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
26-05-2020 State of Maharashtra Versus Mangesh & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-05-2020 Bhagtam & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-05-2020 Abhinav Bharat Congress & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-05-2020 Ms. X Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Mohiuddin Vaid Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Grant Medical Foundation Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-05-2020 K. Gautham Versus The Director of Medical Education, EVR Periyar Salai, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
15-05-2020 A.P. Suryaprakasam Versus Superintendent of Police, Sangli District, Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-05-2020 Yogesh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Hubandary, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, Mantralaya & Another Versus Madhukar Suryabhan Ingale In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 Amalner Municipal Council, Amalner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 Rahul @ Vijay Versus The State of Rajasthan Supreme Court of India
08-05-2020 Chandrakant Kotecha Charitable Trust Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-05-2020 Pratik & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Mahur Dist. Nanded & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
08-05-2020 Virendra Kumar Versus Vijay Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
07-05-2020 Vijay Kumar Agrahari Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
05-05-2020 Shobha Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Annexe, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-05-2020 Zafar Jamal Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Shekhar @ Mukesh Sanadi Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-05-2020 Pradeep Gandhy Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
04-05-2020 Re: Vijay Kurle & Others Supreme Court of India
03-05-2020 Mohammad Nishat Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-04-2020 Mohan Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through : The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Syed Salim & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantrayalay & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Kashish Gupta Versus The Central Board of Secondary Education, Represented by its Secretary, Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
30-04-2020 Shivray Kulkarni & Others Versus State of Maharashtra &Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Baban Gangaram Chirate & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Babu Bhairu Ovhal & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Gajanan Shahu Keripale Versus The State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School Education & Sports Dept, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
27-04-2020 Abuzar Shaikh Abdul Kalam Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 RE : Vijay Kurle & Others Supreme Court of India
27-04-2020 Shankar Sarvotam Pai & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 P. Chandrasekhar Rao & Another Versus The State of Telangana Rep by its Special Chief Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
27-04-2020 Omprakash & Others Versus Vijay Dwarkada Varma In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-04-2020 Ajay Versus State of Maharashtra, through PSO In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-04-2020 Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar Versus Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Others Supreme Court of India
24-04-2020 Naresh Kumar Versus Director of Education & Another High Court of Delhi
24-04-2020 Arvind Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
23-04-2020 High Court on its own motion Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-04-2020 Deodutta Gangadhar Marathe Versus The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-04-2020 Pankaj Rajmachikar Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 Dr. Srinivas Guntupalli Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Guntur & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
15-04-2020 Mohammad Zakir Mohammad Bashir Solanki Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 C.H. Sharma & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Nilesh Shriniwas Baswant Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
08-04-2020 Sarva Hara Jan Andolan through Ulka Mahajan & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-04-2020 Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur, Ravindranath Tagore Marg, through its Registrar & Another Versus State of Maharashtra, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, through its Secretary & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Shahid Bhagat Singh Cooperative Housing Society Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-03-2020 Azam Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
23-03-2020 Delhi Public School, East Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shankar Khandu Thombare & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Kondiba Bahiru Thambare High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 Professor Smt. Manorama Prakash Khandekar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Higher and Technical Education Department, through its Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shivaji Shankar Bhintade High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 Deepak & Another Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Others High Court of Delhi
19-03-2020 SanatombaHaobam Versus The State of Manipur, represented by the Commissioner/ Secretary(Education-S), Government of Manipur, Secretariat, Imphal & Others High Court of Manipur
18-03-2020 Manglam Roongta & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra (Through – PI of Chavani Police Station, Malegaon, District - Nasik) Versus Dr. Baban Lahanu Gangurde & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Meghna Singh (Through: Her Natural Guardian) Avita D Lal Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Another High Court of Delhi
17-03-2020 Chetan Prabhakar Rajwade Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
17-03-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Through its Superintending Engineer, Admn. Versus M/.Pranavditya Spinning Mills Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 CEAT Limited (formerly known as Ceat Tyres of India Ltd.) Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 Jeevan Niwas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra through Department of Co-operation & Textiles, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 A. Pandi Selvi Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-03-2020 Bhavna Kisan Uradya & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Ram Pralhad Khatri & Others Versus State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Chirag Sundarlal Gupta Versus The State of Maharashtra (through Kurar Village Police Station High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Nagrik Samanvya Samiti & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box