The Court held that immediate examination of contentions was unnecessary. It directed the Government to hear parties and apply its mind to the extension of the notification, setting a hearing date.
Directed the parties to appear before the competent authority on 4th May, 2009 for the Government to pass an order on extension.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1846 OF 2008
Shri Kasturilal Joneja
...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others.
... Respondents
Mr. Venkatesh Dhond with Ms. Jyoti Ghag i/by Mr. T. Jariwala for the petitioner.
Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Government Pleader for the State.
Mr. Sanjay Jain i/by M/s. P. Mehta & Mithi for the respondent No.3.
CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE : 20TH MARCH, 2009
P.C.:
It is stated on behalf of the State that the impugned notification would lapse by 20 th May, 2009. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, without application of mind, the competent authority has been granting extension to the said notification and they would do the same for the next period. Thus the cause survives.
2 . Be that as it may, it is not necessary for us to examine the contentions raised before us. In the circumstances aforenoticed, the Government shall hear the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 and
consider the question of extension or otherwise of the notification by passing order upon due application of mind. Thus, we further direct that parties would appear before the competent authority on 4 th May, 2009 but would file their records at least one week in advance thereto. If the parties do not appear on that date, the State Government will proceed to pass the order upon due application of mind of its own accord. Writ petition stands disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition challenging the extension of the impugned notification requires immediate decision by the Court.
Whether the Government must apply its mind to the extension of the notification before the Court decides the matter.
Shri Kasturilal Joneja
State of Maharashtra
Respondent No.3
Swatantar Kumar
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
