Nagpur: Citing a pending case challenging the decision of the caste certificate verification agency, the Regional Meteorological Centre had denied permission for an official’s travel to Germany. This denial was issued through an order dated February 19, 2025. In response, Nilima Ninave filed a petition in the High Court challenging the decision.
During the hearing, the High Court expressed strong displeasure over the actions of the authorities. Following this, the Deputy Director General of the Regional Meteorological Centre submitted an affidavit in court, stating that permission had now been granted to the petitioner for foreign travel. With this affidavit on record, the High Court disposed of the writ petition.
Gold Rate
15 May 2025
Advocate Siddhi Chavare appeared on behalf of the petitioner, while Advocate Mugdha Chandurkar represented the Central Government.
Action Justified by Referring to Central Government Guidelines
In the previous hearing, the counsel representing the Meteorological Department stated that the Deputy Director General denied permission for the Germany visit based on information provided by the Director General of Meteorology, pointing to pending judicial proceedings against the petitioner.
Rizwan Ahmed, Director and Scientist-D of the Aerodrome Meteorological Office, Nagpur, submitted a sworn affidavit stating that the decision was based on an office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Earth Sciences on October 9, 2024, which was cited to justify the action taken.
High Court: Arbitrary Action and Abuse of Authority
After hearing both sides, the High Court noted that a review of the cited office memorandum did not justify restricting the petitioner’s rights based on the February 19, 2025 order. The court observed that the refusal to permit travel was based solely on the pending judicial process related to the caste verification committee’s findings, and despite interim relief granted by the court.
The court termed the action by the authorities as arbitrary and an abuse of power, emphasizing that the decision lacked any valid legal basis. Consequently, the High Court set aside the February 19, 2025 order and lifted the restriction on the petitioner’s travel.
