The court disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction to the Port of Mumbai to expedite an application filed by the petitioners with an opportunity of hearing.
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.
1
mgj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Writ Petition (Ld) No. 1244 of 2010
M/s Liberty Commodities
Limited ..Petitioners
vs.
1 The Board of Trustees of
the Port of Mumbai & ors. ..Respondents
Mr.Ravi M.Kadam, Advocate General with
Mr.Karan D.Bhosale i/b M/s Khaitan and
Jayakar for petitioners
Mr.Umesh Shetty i/b Motiwala and Co. for
respondent no.1
CORAM: MOHIT S.SHAH CJ &
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J
2nd July, 2010
P.C.
By this petition under Article 226
of the Constitution the petitioners have
prayed for a direction to respondent no.1 to
expeditiouslydecidethepetitioner�s
application dated 14thMay 2010 after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
2
2Having heard the learned Counsel for
the petitioners and learned Counsel for
respondent no.1, we dispose of the petition
by recording the statement being made by
learned Counsel for respondent no.1 that
Traffic Committee of respondent no.1 will
decide the petitioners� application dated
14th May 2010 after affording the opportunity
of hearing to the petitioners as
expeditiously as possible and in any case
within three months from today.
3The petition accordingly stands
disposed off.
CHIEF JUSTICE
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether direction to expeditly decide the application should be issued
Whether opportunity of hearing should be afforded
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Liberty Commodities Limited
The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai
MOHIT S. SHAH
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court