Disposed

Shri. Sanjiv Shankarrao Thorat v. the District Supply Officer, Dist. Sangli and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Jan 2012WP/764/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Writ Petition where the High Court dismissed the claim to quash impugned orders as they were subject-matter of a pending revision. The Court directed the Revisional Authority to dispose of the revision expeditiously within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed without deciding merits; Commission for expeditious disposal of pending Revision Application within four weeks.

Shri. Sanjiv Shankarrao Thorat Vs the District Supply Officer, Dist. Sangli and Ors. — Bombay HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

76412

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

vgm

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 764 OF 2012

¶6

Sanjiv Shankarrao Thorat ...Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The District Supply Officer, District Sangli, & Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Sharad Suryavanshi for the Petitioner

¶10

Mr. P.P. Kakde, A.G.P., for the State

¶11

CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND N.M. JAMDAR, JJ. DATE: JANUARY 30, 2012

¶12

P.C .:-

¶13

The first relief claimed in this petition is to quash and set aside orders dated 8^th July, 2011 and 15^th July, 2011. It is not in dispute that the same orders are subject-matter of challenge in Revision Application filed by the petitioner before the State Government. For that reason, the said relief cannot be entertained in this petition with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his challenge to the said orders in the Revision Application.

¶14

76412

¶15

The second grievance made in this petition is that the petitioner was forced to file this petition, as the Revisional Authority has not granted stay to the impugned decisions. The counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the petitioner will be satisfied if the Revisional Authority were to be directed to decide the Revision Application expeditiously.

¶16

The learned A.G.P. states that the Revisional Authority will pass final order on the pending Revision Application within four weeks from today.

¶17

We were informed by the learned A.G.P. that the Revision, ordinarily, is heard by the Minister of the Department, and he may not find time to decide the same due to impending elections in several districts. We cannot countenance such statement. If power is conferred on the Minister to decide Revision Application by statute, that power is coupled with the duty to decide it expeditiously. If he does not have time, and if the law permits, he may consider of delegating that power to some competent officer, who would be able to decide the Revision Application within the time specified by us, i.e., four weeks from today.

¶18

Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶19

N.M. JAMDAR, J.

¶20

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

Shri. Sanjiv Shankarrao Thorat v. the District Supply Officer, Dist. Sangli and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sanjiv Shankarrao Thorat v. the District Supply Officer, Dist. Sangli and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamladeo Dayaldas Ahuja Vs Regisrar, Co-Op. Housing Societies and 5 Ors.

Raoso Narasgonda Patil and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Co-Operation and Ors.

Sambhaji Vilas Anuse Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.