Dismissed

Shobhabai Trimbakrao Sawant and Another v. Bhimrao Tulshiram Salve and Others

Bombay HC17 Oct 2013LPA/61/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad held that the present letters patent appeal was mis-conceived and not maintainable. The appellants were directed to approach the single judge regarding their representation to the Hon'ble Minister.

What did the court decide?

Letters Patent Appeal dismissed. Appellants given liberty to make request before learned Single Judge in appropriate jurisdiction. No costs awarded.

Shobhabai Trimbakrao Sawant and Another Vs Bhimrao… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

 LPA 61/13

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.61/2013

¶6

Smt.Shobhabai w/o Trimbakrao
Sawant & another.

¶7

...Appellants..

¶8

Versus

¶9

Bhimrao Tulshiram Salve & others.

¶10

...Respondents...

¶11

 .....

¶12

Shri D.S. Bagul, Advocate h/f Shri P.D. Bachate, Advocate
for appellants.

¶13

Shri A.M. Mukhedkar, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, AGP for respondent nos.2 to 6.

¶14

 .....

¶15

CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
 RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.

¶16

DATE: 17.10.2013

¶17

ORDER :

¶18

1] Heard.

¶19

2]Perused paragraph no.13 of the judgment dated

¶20

22.3.2013 in Writ Petition No.4733/2011 impugned before

¶21

this Court. This Court has noted desire of writ

¶22

petitioner to reopen the issue with competent authorities

¶23

if law permits and, therefore, judgment was stayed for a

¶24

period of 30 days. This Court, however, observed that

¶25

 LPA 61/13

¶26

issue can be reopened only if law permits.

¶27

3]Effort was then made in Review Petition No.135/2012
before learned Single Judge to have a review of this

¶28

order. The leave granted in paragraph no.13 of said
judgment did not form pat of consideration insofar as
prayer for review is concerned. Learned Single Judge,
while disposing of review in paragraph no.7 again
observed that review applicant is at liberty to approach
concerned authorities.

¶29

4]In this situation, we find that present letters

¶30

patent appeal filed challenging the judgment already
accepted by present appellants is not maintainable.

¶31

5]Learned counsel for appellants submits that

¶32

appellants will be satisfied if their representation made
to Hon'ble Minister, Revenue and Forest Department is
expedited and is decided in a time bound manner.

¶33

6]Advocate Shri A.M. Mukhedkar for respondent no.1
(original writ petitioner) is strongly opposing any
interference by this Court.

¶34

7]AS we have found that the Letters Patent Appeal

¶35

itself is mis-conceived, it is apparent that the
appellants have to make said request before learned

¶36

 LPA 61/13

¶37

Single Judge in appropriate jurisdiction. Hence, with
said liberty to appellants and without observing anything
on merits in that connection, we dispose of present
Letters Patent Appeal. No costs.

¶38

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

¶39

ndk/c17101310

Shobhabai Trimbakrao Sawant and Another v. Bhimrao Tulshiram Salve and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobhabai Trimbakrao Sawant and Another v. Bhimrao Tulshiram Salve and Others

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

Shaikh Ismail Shaikh Gafoor Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The Ahmednagar Social Association Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Maharashtra Shikshan Sanstha, Moha and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Khaja Ahemad Mustafa Azhar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shobhabai Mansaram Pawar and Others Vs the Municipal Council, Amalner and Others

New Shyam Dharti Kendra and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others