Disposed

Sitaram Compound Welfare Society v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC9 Aug 2010WP/1553/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought voter inclusion, water, and electricity connections under Article 226. Court held petitioner did not exhaust remedies by omitting prior applications. Court directed administrative authorities to decide representations within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Director that concerned authorities decide applications/representations within four weeks if made.

Sitaram Compound Welfare Society Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2010)

１

srk

wp-1553-10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1553 OF 2010

¶6

Sitaram Compound Welfare Society Versus The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

Mr.Satish Mishra i/by Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the petitioner. Ms. Vidya S. Gharpure for respondent No.2-MCGM. Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Government Pleader for State-respondent No.1.

¶10

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶11

Monday, August 9, 2010

¶12

P .C.

¶13

The petitioner has made three prayers in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India viz. (i) direct the State Government to take all the necessary steps for the purpose of including the names of the members of the petitioner and their family members in the voters' list; (ii) direct the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to grant water connection to the petitioner in the premises at Sant Rohiddas Nagar, Sitaram Mill Compound, J.R. Boricha Marg, Jacob Circle, Mumbai -400 011; (iii) direct the B,E,S, & T. Undertaking to grant electricity connection to the petitioner in the above premises.

¶14

The petitioner has not indicated whether the petitioner has made any application to the above authorities before seeking a writ of mandamus from this court. As per the settled legal position, the petitioner is first required to make a demand before the concerned authorities and only if the authorities

２

srk

wp-1553-10

refuse to grant relief or if the respondents-authorities are guilty of inaction, then, only the petitioner can invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court.

¶19

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner makes applications/representations to the concerned authorities, the respective authorities shall decide such applications/representations within four weeks from the date of receipt of the applications/representations of the petitioner.

¶20

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶21

S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

Sitaram Compound Welfare Society v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitaram Compound Welfare Society v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 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

Jagran Prakashan Ltd. and 3 Ors. Vs Bahujan Samaj Party and Anr.

Rambhau Mahadev Biramane Deceased Pandurang Rambhau Biramane and Anr. Vs the Collector, Pund Division and Ors.

Bhrashtachar Nirmulan Sanghtana and 1 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Alpha and Omega Diagnostics India Limited and 6 Ors. Vs Asset Reconstructon Co. (India) Limited and Anr.

Rototex Polyester Vs the Chairman and Manalging Director and 6 Ors.

Santosh Daundkar Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.