Disposed

Tanvi Constuction Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Aug 2010WP/1084/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court issued a direction to the Investigating Officer to submit a sanction prosecution proposal for the accused within four weeks, rendering the present petition subservient and unnecessary for further order. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The Investigating Officer is directed to submit the sanction proposal within four weeks. No further order necessary.

Tanvi Constuction Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

wp.1084.10.sxw

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1084 OF 2010

¶4

Tanvi Construction Private Limited ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr.A.Y.Sakhare with Mr.U.B.Nighot for Petitioner.

¶9

Mr.S.R.Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondents 1 & 2.

¶10

Mrs.Teja Katdare for Respondents 3 and 4.

¶11

Mr.Nitesh Bhutekar for Respondent No.5.

¶12

CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED:- AUGUST 25, 2010.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Heard Counsel for the parties.

¶15

By this Petition, in essence, the Petitioner seeks direction against the

¶16

Respondents including the Police Authorities to obtain sanction for prosecution of Respondent No.5 for having committed offence under Section 52 r/w Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. It is stated that pursuant to the complaint filed by the Petitioner, the

¶17

wp.1084.10.sxw

¶18

¶19

Police has carried out investigation and are of the opinion that offence as alleged has been committed by the Respondent No.5. However, the Police has expressed inability to proceed in the matter in absence of sanction to be granted by the appropriate Authority of the Corporation.

¶20

In the companion matter, the Corporation rejected the proposal for sanction on the finding that no complaint was filed by the Corporation nor any complaint was received by the Corporation with regard to the alleged act of commission and omission. In the companion case, since the said view has been set aside and the sanction proposal has been revived to be reconsidered by the appropriate Authority afresh on its own merits in accordance with law, the learned A.P.P. on instructions of the Investigating Officer submits that the Investigating Officer would forthwith take steps to submit proposal to accord sanction to prosecute Respondent No.5 even in the present case. In view of this statement, nothing would survive for consideration in the present Petition.

¶21

We hope and trust that the Investigating Officer would take necessary

¶22

steps for submitting the proposal for according sanction to prosecute Respondent No.5 within four weeks from today. On receipt of the said

¶23

wp.1084.10.sxw

¶24

¶25

proposal, the appropriate Authority of the Corporation may consider the same on its own merits in accordance with law. In view of the above, no

¶26

further order is necessary.

¶27

Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶28

(U.D.SALVI, J.)

¶29

(A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

Tanvi Constuction Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanvi Constuction Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Dattatray Bagal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pralhad Tukaram Dange Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohd. Izabul Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kantilal Hari Sapra Vs the Senior Inspector of Police and Ors.

Tanvi Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Babulal Punamiya Vs Rajeshwar Singh and Ors.