Disposed

Ashok Amruta Chavan and Ors. v. Dr. Pandurang Nagorao Munde and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Sept 2012WP/1795/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition seeking direction to decide a representation, the High Court held that the cause of action ceased to exist as the Respondent authorities undertook to decide the representation within six weeks. Consequently, the writ petition and the attached civil application were disposed of without adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

Disposition of the writ petition and civil application as the cause of action no longer survived.

Ashok Amruta Chavan and Ors. Vs Dr… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

14.wp.1795.11.doc

¶2

jdk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1795 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1212 OF 2012 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1795 OF 2011

¶6

Mr. Ashok Amruta Chavan and Ors.

¶7

..Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Dr. Pandurang Nagorao Munde and Ors.

¶10

..Respondents

¶11

Mr. K.N.Kore for Petitioners

¶12

Mr. N.P.Deshpande AGP for Respondent Nos. 6,8, 9, 11 and 12

¶13

Mr. G.Hariharan i/b Pankaj Kapoor for Respondent No. 7 Mr. P.P.Chawan i/b Little and Co. for Respondent No. 10 Ms. Ushajee Peri for Intervener

¶14

CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J J.

¶15

DATE : SEPTEMBER 13, 2012.

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respective Respondents.

¶18

The petitioners in the present Writ Petition are seeking

¶19

direction to the Respondent No. 8 to decide the representation dated 28.8.2009 submitted by the Petitioners

¶20

Pg 1 of 2

¶21

14.wp.1795.11.doc

¶22

to Respondent No. 8 Minister for Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai. Though the direction is also sought by the Petitioners against the Collector for deciding the representation submitted by the Petitioners dated 28.8.2009, however, according to the Petitioners, the cause of action in both these representations being one and the same, direction to decide the representation dated 28.8.2009 would suffice.

¶23

The learned AGP states that the representation of the Petitioners dated 28.8.2009 if not decided till this date by respondent no. 8, shall be decided according to law and procedure applicable in this regard within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶24

In view of the statement made by the learned AGP, cause of action in the present Writ Petition no more survives and the same is disposed of accordingly.

¶25

Civil Application No. 1212 of 2012 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly.

¶26

[ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ D.D.SINHA, J. ]

¶27

kandarkar

¶28

Pg 2 of 2

Ashok Amruta Chavan and Ors. v. Dr. Pandurang Nagorao Munde and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Amruta Chavan and Ors. v. Dr. Pandurang Nagorao Munde and Ors.

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

Mrs Shubhangi Gawade and Others Vs Sharad Bhimrao Sanghavi(Kamble)

Rahul Nandkumar Moze, Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Kishore Mohanlal Sugandh Vs Krantiveer Vasantrao Narayanrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Thorugh President and Ors.

Mr. Dhananjay Chandrakant Kulkarni Vs the Branch Manager State Bank of India Branch and Ors.

Mrs. Vibhavari Dhananjay Kulkarni Vs the Branch Manager State Bank of India Branch and Ors.

Vasubhai Patel Vs the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Daman and Diu Dholar