Petitioner sought direction for expeditious determination of pending revision and tribal cases by respondents. Court directed disposal within six months and disposed of the writ petition.
Direction given to Respondents 1 to 3 to decide Revision Application No. 68 of 2008 and Tribal Case No. 1 of 2008 within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
( WP 3842 of 2013)
VAT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE URISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3842 OF 2013
Yashwant Rama Tarvi ...Petitioner Vs. Tahsildar & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr.Mandar Limaye for Petitioner Mrs. M.P. Thakur -AGP for Respondents ***
CORAM : V. M. KANADE, AND K.R. SHRIRAM, JJ. DATE : JULY 10, 2013
P.C.
direction may be given to Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to decide the Revision Application No.68 of 2008 and also Tribal Case No. 1 of 2008 which are pending before them as expeditiously as possible within a time bound period.
view, the writ petition can be conveniently disposed of by directing Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to decide the Revision Application No.68 of
1/2
( WP 3842 of 2013)
2008 as also Tribal Case No.1 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible, in any case, within a period of six months from today on merits and in accordance with law. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order.
[K.R.SHRIRAM, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]
Vaishali Tikam
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be decided by directing the respondents to determine pending applications within six months.
Yashwant Rama Tarvi
Tahsildar
Respondents 2 and 3
V. M. KANADE
K.R. SHRIRAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court