The High Court at Aurangabad issued a direction in this writ petition for the respondent authority to decide the petitioner's representation submitted on 26.12.2013 within two months.
Direction to respondent no.2 to decide the representation of 26.12.2013 expeditiously within two 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.
- 1 -
WP 2903/14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2903/2014
Dr.Nilesh Sureshchandra Lathi.
...Petitioner..
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Respondents...
.....
Shri Ajay S. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri S.V. Kurundkar, Govt.Pleader for respondent no.1.
Shri G.G. Kadam, Advocate for respondent no.2.
.....
CORAM: R.M. BORDE &
A.M. BADAR, JJ.
DATE: 08.04.2014
ORDER :
1]A reasonable prayer made by the petitioner in the
petition for issuing direction to the respondent no.2 to
consider the representation tendered by the petitioner on
26.12.2013 in accordance with law needs to be considered
favourably.
2]The writ petition stands disposed of with a
direction to the respondent no.2 to decide the
representation tendered by the petitioner on 26.12.2013
WP 2903/14
as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a
period of two months from today in the light of decision
of the High Court referred to in the representation
tendered by the petitioner.
(A.M. BADAR, J.) (R.M. BORDE, J.)
ndk/c841413
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation expeditiously should be issued?
Dr. Nilesh Sureshchandra Lathi
The State of Maharashtra
R.M. Borde
A.M. Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court