Disposed

Sanjay Govind Kate and 20 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and 8 Ors.

Bombay HC10 Dec 2012WP/252/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged delay in deciding a representation by the respondent. The court recorded assurance that the matter would be reconsidered fresh. It dismissed the writ petition directing respondents to follow due process.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with direction to respondents to decide the representation within four weeks and follow due process.

Sanjay Govind Kate and 20 Ors. Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

kvm

1/2

WPL2304.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2304 OF 2012

¶7

Sanjay Govind Kate & Ors.

¶8

..... Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶11

..... Respondents

¶12

Mr.Ashish Gaikwad for the Petitioners.

¶13

Mr.R.J.Mane, A.G.P – for the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8.

¶14

CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.D. DHANUKA, JJ. DATED : 10th DECEMBER, 2012

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

The grievance of the petitioners is that inspite of order dated 27^th August 2012, no decision has been taken by respondent no.2 in the matter. Counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the petitioners were heard but no final order has been passed. He further submits that the order which has already been passed, the department has decided to consider to re-call the same and pass a fresh order after taking into account the stand taken by the petitioners.

¶17

In other words, the respondent no.2 has decided to consider the entire

¶18

matter afresh on its own merit in accordance with law after following due process. Assurance so given by the counsel for the respondents is accepted and placed on record.

kvm

2/2

WPL2304.12

We however, hope and trust that respondent no.2 will decide the proposed representation of the petitioners herein within four weeks from today and communicate the same to the petitioners within the same time. Counsel for the petitioners assure to extend full co-operation to respondent no.2 for an early decision in the matter. That assurance is accepted.

¶23

Counsel for the petitioners states that the proposal/representation of the petitioners be considered by the State Government or The Secretary of the State Government instead of Commissioner of Dairy in view of the fact that the earlier order was passed by the said Authority. No allegation of malafide is found against respondent no.2 nor the person who was in the office of the Commissioner of Dairy has been named as respondent.

¶24

Thus understood, apprehension of the petitioners is completely misplaced and more particularly keeping in mind the statement made by the counsel appearing for the respondents that new In-Charge Commissioner has been appointed who will give audience to the petitioners.

¶25

In the circumstances, petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to follow due process and in conformity with the order dated 27^th August, 2012.

¶26

(R.D.DHANUKA, J)

¶27

(A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)

Sanjay Govind Kate and 20 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Govind Kate and 20 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and 8 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

Swapna Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Vibhavari Dhananjay Kulkarni Vs Appasaheb Bhau Kumbhar and Ors.

Shri. Prakash Dattu Sutar Vs the Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Mehra Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Mazhar Hussain Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation

Anand Nagar Chs Ltd. Vs Mcgm and Ors.