Disposed

Vikrant Ramesh Chandwadkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Jan 2011WP/30/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the Court addressed the failure of the Appropriate Authority to decide a license renewal application within three years. The Petitioner sought renewal of an existing CPN license before its expiry. The Court directed the Authority to decide the application within eight weeks and communicate the decision within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Appropriate Authority to decide the license renewal application within eight weeks and communicate the decision within two weeks.

Vikrant Ramesh Chandwadkar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2011)

PPD

12.wp.30-11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.30 OF 2011

¶6

Mr.Vikrant Ramesh Chandwadkar. Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra.

¶8

..Petitioner.

¶9

..Respondent.

¶10

Mr.S.R. Chitnis, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr.Ashish Sawant, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶11

Ms.S.V. Gajare, A.P.P. for the State.

¶12

CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND

¶13

A.R. JOSHI, JJ.

¶14

DATED : 17^TH JANUARY, 2011.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

The grievance of the Petitioner in this petition is primarily that

¶17

even though the Petitioner has applied for renewal of his license No.CPN/15/97 before expiry thereof, as back as in the year 2008, no decision has been taken by the Appropriate Authority so far.

¶18

However, as it is a case of renewal of license which was already operating in favour of the Petitioner, we fail to understand as to how the Appropriate Authority can keep the said application undecided and as a consequence allow the license period to expire. Ordinarily, if it is a case of application for renewal of license, the same should be decided as expeditiously as possible and in any case before the date of expiry of the original license period. Even, in case, there is any difficulty in doing

¶19

¶20

12.wp.30-11

¶21

so, by no stretch of imagination we can countenance the attitude of the Appropriate Authority of keeping the application for renewal of license undecided for over three years, as in this case.

¶22

Learned A.P.P. submits that she has no instructions in the matter.

¶23

We would assume that the Appropriate Authority has taken some decision on the application for renewal of license filed by the Petitioner. If so, it ought to have been communicated to the Petitioner with promptitude. Be that as it may, we dispose of this Petition with directions to the Appropriate Authority to finally decide the application for renewal of license filed by the Petitioner, before expiry of the term of original license period, as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than eight weeks from today, if already not decided. Besides, the decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within the same time. In case, some decision has already been taken on the said application for renewal of license, it be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks from today.

¶24

Petition is disposed of on the above terms.

¶25

(A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)

Vikrant Ramesh Chandwadkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikrant Ramesh Chandwadkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gauri S. Nabar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tukaram Baburao Shinde and Anr. Vs Gruh Finance Limited and Anr.

Ajeet Shankarlal Bhatia Vs Dilip Mohandas Ramrakhyni and Ors.

Vikrant Ramesh Chandwadkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sohit Shravankumar Saadh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Satyavan Parshuram Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.