Dismissed

Ramchandra Devidasrao Deshmukh v. Governer Shri S G Jamirji the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jun 2009WP/174/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition challenging the Cabinet decision on the bifurcation of Revenue Division as premature. The court held that the cause of action arises only after the issuance of notification under section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The petition was disposed of summarily without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ramchandra Devidasrao Deshmukh Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.174 OF 2009

¶5

Ramchandra Devidasrao Deshmukh..PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Hon’ble S.C. Jameerji,
Governor, M.S., Mumbai & anr...RESPONDENTS

¶8

Petitioner in person;
Mr N.B. Khandare, Govt. Pleader for respondents.

¶9

CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND
 R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ.

¶10

 (Date of reserving the
 order : 15th June, 2009

¶11

 Date of pronouncing the
 order 16th June, 2009)

¶12

ORDER: [PER P.V. HARDAS, J.]

¶13

This petition impugns the Cabinet decision
regarding bifurcation of the Revenue Division and
creation of a new Revenue Division at Nanded. It
appears that the petitioner had filed similar
petitions earlier and this Court had in categorical
terms, especially in order dated 10.11.2006 passed in
Writ Petition No.6025 of 2006 had held that the

¶14

¶15

petitioner would have cause of action for filing a
petition after the issuance of notification under
section 4 (1) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,
1966. In that light of the matter, therefore,
according to us the petition is premature.

¶16

2.We have heard the petitioner in person who has
read the additional affidavit filed by him as well as
the grounds raised in the petition. We are informed
that similar petitions have been filed in this Court
and are pending adjudication, though filed on
different grounds challenging the said decision of
the Government. The petitioner specifically requested
that his petition should not be tagged along with
those petitions and should be decided independently.
In the light of the grounds which are raised in the
petition, we find that the other petitions raise
different grounds and, therefore, this petition can be
conveniently decided and the decision of this petition
would not affect the pending writ petitions.

¶17

3.As observed by us, this petition is premature and
in the light of that we dismiss the petition summarily
with no order as to costs.

¶18

amj/wp174.09

¶19

Ramchandra Devidasrao Deshmukh v. Governer Shri S G Jamirji the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ramchandra Devidasrao Deshmukh v. Governer Shri S G Jamirji the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalawati Tukaram Kurhe Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dnyaneshwar Chintaman Patil Vs the State of Mah

Monika Kiran Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhanraj Nawalrai Rizwani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tarachand Jagannath Pardeshi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjay Sureshchandra Surana Vs the Union of India and Anr.