Allowed

Shri Abdul Razak M. Pambra v. State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jan 2012WP/262/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition arose from suspension of the publisher's bar license. The court extended the stay of suspension on license till the appeal is heard and disposed of by Respondent No. 2 and for two weeks thereafter if adverse. Order accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Extension of stay of suspension of petitioner's bar license until appeal is heard and served and for two weeks thereafter if order is adverse.

Shri Abdul Razak M. Pambra Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 wpl-l-58-12

¶2

I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

jmi

¶5

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 58 OF 2012.

¶6

Abdul Razak M. Pambra, Proprietor of Hotel White House Bar and Restaurant.

¶7

..Petitioner.

¶8

vs.

¶9

State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶10

Mrs. Veena Thadani, i/b. N.K. Desai, for Petitioner. Ms. Gaidhani, AGP, for Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 17TH JANUARY 2012.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Rule.

¶14

By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith. The Learned Advocate for the Respondents waives service.

¶15

Since a very limited issue is involved, the Petition is by consent taken up forthwith for final disposal.

¶16

By this Petition, the Petitioner is seeking extension of the stay of the order of suspension of the Petitioner’s bar licence under the order of Respondent No. 1 dated 12^th December 2011, received by him on 15^th December 2011.

¶17

It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner has filed an Appeal along with Application for stay of the impugned

¶18

2 wpl-l-58-12

¶19

order dated 12^th December 2011 before Respondent No.2 on 10^th January 2012 under section 33 of the Bombay Police Act, impugning the order passed by the Respondent No. 1 dated 12^th December 2012. The said Application for stay and Appeal have not yet been heard. The stay granted on the order of suspension of licence to the Petitioner was to come to an end on 14^th January 2012 and hence the stay was extended by this Court on 12^th January 2012. The Learned Advocate for the Petitioner seeks continuation of the said stay of suspension of the Petitioner’s licence until the Appeal is finally heard and disposed of by Respondent No.2.

¶20

In view thereof, the following order is passed :- The order of stay contained in the order of Respondent No. 1

¶21

dated 12^th December 2012 on suspension of licence shall continue until the Appeal is finally heard and the Petitioner is served with a copy of the order passed by Respondent No.2 and for a period of two weeks thereafter, if the order is adverse/against the Petitioner.

¶22

Order accordingly.

¶23

[ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]

Shri Abdul Razak M. Pambra v. State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Abdul Razak M. Pambra v. State of Maharashtra and 4 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

The Pen Co-Op. Urban Bank Ltd. and Anr. Vs Mangesh Forgings Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Smt. Vasantben Ramniklal Bhuta Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Varsha Hemant Shetty Vs the Commissioner of Police and Anr.

Ramchandra Ballaya Samal Vs a/ K. Agarwal and Anr.

Karamshi Rayshi Dedhia Vs Rajendra J.Singh

Leena Pradeep Bhalkia Vs Delux Box Factory and 2 Ors.