Allowed

Sunil Narayan Patil v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Apr 2013WP/4152/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge quashed an order by the Additional Commissioner that rejected a revision despite reasons supporting the petitioner. The petition was allowed, the revision restored to the original file for a fresh decision within six months, and contentions on merits left open.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and set aside; revision restored to original file for fresh hearing within six months; writ petition allowed.

Sunil Narayan Patil Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp4152.12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4152 OF 2012

¶5

Sunil Narayan Patil... PETITIONER.
VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra
and others.

¶7

 .. RESPONDENTS.

¶8

Shri Pawar Ajay D., Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for R.No.7.
Shri B.V. Wagh, AGP for R.Nos.1 to 6.

¶9

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE,J.

¶10

 26th April, 2013.

¶11

PER COURT:

¶12

1.Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset

¶14

submits that the reasons assigned by the
Additional Commissioner in revision are in

¶15

favour of the petitioner. However, the
operative part is contrary to the reasons
assigned.

¶16

wp4152.12

¶17

¶18

2.The learned AGP appearing for respondents
1 to 6 fairly concedes that there is mismatch
in the reasons given by the revisional
authority and the operative part of the order.

¶19

The learned Counsel for the respondent No.
7 vehemently opposed the prayer in the
petition and submitted that petition deserves
no consideration.

¶20

3.Upon hearing learned Counsel for the
parties and perusal of the impugned judgment
and order, I find considerable substance in
the arguments of the learned Counsel for the
petitioner that the reasons assigned by the
revisional authority support case of the
petitioner. However, accepting case of the
petitioner, it appears that revision is
rejected. Therefore, instead of entering into
merits of the matter, ends of justice would
meet if following order is passed :

¶21

wp4152.12

¶22

¶23

4.The impugned judgment and order dated
17.12.2011 passed by Additional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik in RTS Revision No.
394/2010 is quashed and set aside. The said
revision is restored to its original file.
The revisional authority shall hear the said
revision afresh and decide the same within six
months from today. All the contentions on
merits are left open to be agitated before the
revisional authority. Writ Petition is

¶24

allowed accordingly and stands disposed of.

¶25

PLK/*

Sunil Narayan Patil v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Narayan Patil v. the State of Mah 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

Dattatraya Vishwambhar Yadav Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vishwas Raosaheb Jadhav Vs Babu Apparao Shinde and Ors.

Bismillah Khan Murtuja Khan Pathan and Anr. Vs Abdul Jabbarkhan Murtaza Khan and Ors.

Shahadu Vithhal Mahajan Vs Dwarkabai Baburao Chaudhari and Ors.

Ajoba Shankar Mahar (Shirsath) Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Santoshkumar Meghraj Rathod Vs the Head Master, Dnyan-Vikas Secondary and High Secondary Vidylaya, Patoda(B) and Ors.