Allowed

Manish Prakash Mutha and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Mar 2013WP/1871/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition under Article 226 seeking removal of security charges or deposit of appropriate security, the High Court accepted the undertakings given by counsel on instructions that security was provided without charge for one prayer and disputed charges would be settled via a representation for the other.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute accepting undertakings for payment of disputed security charges and issuance of security without charge.

Manish Prakash Mutha and Anr. Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

CWP1871.12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO 1871 OF 2012.

¶6

MANISH PRAKASH MUTHA & ANR... PETITIONERS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATEOF MAHARASHTRA ... RESPONDENT

¶9

Mr. A. M. Saraogi, Advocate for the petitioners Mrs. A. S. Pai, APP for the State

¶10

I.O. - Mr. G. B. Thorat – PI – Security Branch, Special Branch, Thane City, Dist. Thane, present.

¶11

CORAM:-P. V. HARDAS & ABHAY M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATED : 06/03/2013

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Rule. Rule returnable forth. With the consent of

¶14

learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶15

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

1/4

CWP1871.12

India, by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to either remove the security or provide appropriate security without charging any amount on such terms, as may be considered fit and proper by the court. The petitioner further prays for issuance of a writ, directing the respondents to forthwith withdraw the security charges levied on the petitioners, in respect of the security provided to the petitioners.

¶20

It appears that the respondents have now provided the security to the petitioners and are not charging any amount to the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, states that the relief at prayer clause (a) of the petition stands granted to the petitioners. In respect of the prayer clause (b) to the petition, the learned APP states on instructions that, as on today an amount of Rs.18,69,141/- is payable by the petitioners towards the charges of the security which was provided to the petitioners earlier. The aforesaid

2/4

CWP1871.12

amount is disputed by Mr. Saraogi, learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, states on instructions that, the petitioners would pay an amount of Rs.10 lacs to the respondents within two weeks from today. In respect of the balance amount i.e. Rs.8,69,141/- the petitioners would submit a representation to the respondents within one week from today. The learned APP states on instructions that, upon receipt of the said representation, the respondents would decide the said representation in accordance with law within one week from receipt of the said representation and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioners.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioners further states on instructions that, upon receipt of the said decision from the respondents, the petitioners would pay the respondents the amount claimed in the said decision, within four weeks of its receipt.

3/4

CWP1871.12

We, accept the aforesaid statements made by the respective counsel, as undertaking to the court.

¶30

We, therefore, allow this petition and make rule absolute in terms of the statements referred to above, with no order as to costs.

¶31

Learned APP state on instructions from I.O. - Mr. G. B. Thorat – PI – Security Branch, Special Branch, Thane City, Dist. Thane, who is present in court.

¶32

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.) (P.V. HARDAS,J.)

¶33

md.saleem

¶34

4/4

Manish Prakash Mutha and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Prakash Mutha and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Navnath Bhikuji Salunkhe and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shaukat Kasim Fauji and Ors.

Maruti Eknath Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra

S. M. Sawant Vs Magoub Ali Mohamed El Boshari

Shantaram Tukaram Katkari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohd Akram Mohd Munnawar Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.