Disposed

Suresh Rama Kanchan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jun 2013WP/1253/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ jurisdiction matter, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay directed the respondent authority to dispose of the petitioner's appeal and stay application regarding the suspension of his restaurant license within eight weeks. The court also stayed the execution of the suspension order during pendency.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.4 to dispose of appeal within eight weeks; stay on implementation of suspension order during pendency.

Suresh Rama Kanchan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1416/13.

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION LODGING NO.1416 OF 2013

¶4

Suresh Rama Kanchan ....Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶5

Ms. Bobby Malhotra, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Shekhar Ingawale, AGP for the respondent/State.

¶6

CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : June 17, 2013.

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

Heard Ms. Malhotra and Mr. Ingawale, the learned counsel

¶9

for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the State respectively.

¶10

2 By the order dated 7^th May 2013, respondent no.2 suspended petitioner's license for the period of 12 days in respect of his establishment namely, Junction Restaurant & Bar and the petitioner was given 30 days time to approach the appellate authority to challenge the impugned order. Petitioner received above order on 8^th May 2013 and thereafter appeal challenging the said order was filed on 13^th May 2013. Alongwith the appeal, the Petitioner also filed application seeking stay to the impugned order during the pendency

Shivgan

1416/13.

of appeal. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though he has approached the appellate authority within time, the appellate authority has not passed any order either on his appeal or stay application and as such his appeal will be rendered infructuous. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that since the Petitioner has informed the Respondent authorities that Petitioner has filed appeal, the Respondent authorities have not so far implemented the order, however, unless there is any decision by the appellate authority on his stay application, the Respondent authorities may take action against the Petitioner's establishment and therefore it is necessary that some protection may be granted to the Petitioner.

¶15

3 Mr. Ingawale, learned AGP states that in the facts and circumstances of this case direction may be given to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal along with stay application expeditiously.

¶16

4 In the above circumstances, writ petition is disposed of by passing the following order:

¶17

(i) Respondent no.4 is directed to hear and dispose of the appeal filed by the Petitioner, memo of which is annexed at Exhibit-D to the petition, as

Shivgan

1416/13.

expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

(ii) During the pendency and till the final disposal of Petitioner's appeal, implementation and operation of the order dated 7^th May 2013, passed by respondent no.2 in respect of petitioner's establishment Junction Restaurant and Bar shall remain stayed.

¶23

(iii) In the event, any order adverse to the interest of the petitioner is passed by respondent no.4 in the appeal, then, same shall not be given effect for a period of two weeks from the date of communication thereof to the petitioner.

¶24

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶25

Shivgan

Suresh Rama Kanchan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Rama Kanchan v. State of Maharashtra and 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

M/S Gerbera Trade and Investment Private Limited Vs the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra

Sunanda Textile Engineers Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator, High Court of Bombay of Matushree Textiles Ltd.

Sunanda Textile Engineers Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator, Liquidator. High Court, Bombay of M/S.Matushree Textiles Ltd.

Indusind Bank Limited Vs M/S. Kosi Plast Private Limited- U25209PN1999PTC014290

Devkishan Bhuralal Dave and Anr. Vs Abhyudaya Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Sarva Shramik Sangh Vs M/S. Neosym Industries Ltd. and 4 Ors.