Disposed

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Nandkishor Laxminarayan Toshniwal

Bombay HC10 Oct 2013CA/5425/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a second hearing regarding a writ petition concerning license cancellations and non-prosecution of specific licensees, the Court found the prayer regarding prosecution infructuous due to subsequent regularisation. It disposed of the petition without examining merits on the record.

What the court decided

AI extract

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 4830 OF 2006 WITH CA/5425/2011 IN WP/4830/2006

¶3

NANDKISHOR LAXMINARAYAN TOSHNIWAL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAH & ORS

¶4

Advocate for Petitioner : Shri B.S.Shinde AGP for Respondents: Shri K. M. Suryawanshi

¶5

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. Dated: October 10, 2013

¶6

PER COURT :-

¶7

Learned Advocate Shri Shinde for the petitioner states that he has been engaged recently. In first half, he sought an adjournment. However, as the matter is of year 2006, we did not grant adjournment and we also did not discharge the Advocate earlier appearing for the petitioner. Shri Shinde, learned Advocate, therefore, agreed to argue the matter in second half. In second half, learned counsel again expressed the same difficulty. However, as the request was rejected, he assisted the Court. According to him, though grievance in relation to prayer (D) is satisfied in so far as initiation of criminal prosecution is concerned, action is taken against only few of the licensees and remaining licensees similarly situated have been spared. He contends that in reply affidavit, the respondents admit that lapse and he, therefore, requests to initiate criminal case against the remaining licensees also.

¶8

Learned AGP for the respondents relies upon the reply affidavit. He submits that the competent authorities have applied mind to the complaint received and thereafter have initiated criminal prosecution against the licensees as per law. He further contends that no particular licensee, in his individual capacity, is party respondent before the Court

¶9

¶10

akl

¶11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO. 4830 OF 2006

¶13

and hence, if a direction is issued by the Court to initiate criminal prosecution against remaining licensees, it would affect their defence. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner should be permitted to take recourse to such other remedies as are open in law. He also placed reliance upon order dated 20.1.2010, more particularly, observation in paragraph No.30 therein.

¶14

In reply, Shri Shinde, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that though the later developments are not on record, the licensees whose licenses were cancelled approached the Honourable Minister and the Honourable Minister has regularised all licenses. Thus, as of today, according to learned Advocate Shri Shinde, all licensees are doing their business.

¶15

Learned AGP for respondents submits that these subsequent events are not on record and hence he is not in a position to explain them.

¶16

It is apparent that the State Government, after notice was issued by this Court, has taken cognizance of the matter and has also initiated action. Prayer, as per prayer clause (D) in the present petition has been rendered infructuous because licenses were cancelled. The State Government in it's wisdom found it not necessary to proceed criminally against all licensees. The correctness of that wisdom cannot be examined by us in absence of all licensees.

¶17

If the Honourable Minister has interfered in the matter and has again restored licenses, it is open to the petitioner to raise appropriate challenge against restoration of licenses before a competent forum,

¶18

akl

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶20

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO. 4830 OF 2006

¶22

including this Court. In that event, he can also point out the fact that remaining licensees were spared and no criminal prosecution was instituted against them. Hence, with said liberty to the petitioner and without observing anything on merits of the controversy, we dispose of the present petition with no order as to costs.

¶23

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. )

¶24

akl

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Nandkishor Laxminarayan Toshniwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Nandkishor Laxminarayan Toshniwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh Ashokrao Panjabi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Udaykumar Murlidhar Ballal and Anr. Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Shodhan Yeshwant Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S Omkar Builders and Developers Thr Partner Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Randhir Rangnathrao Jogdand Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Nita Naval Patil Vs the Union of India and Others