Disposed

Pravinkumar Chottalal Doshi v. the Collector Satara and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Apr 2014WP/5094/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an impugned communication issued by the Chief Minister. The court held that the petitioner could not have approached the Chief Minister without knowing the status of the earlier application pending before the Collector. The petition was disposed of with directions to the Collector to ascertain compliance with an old order.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned communication; direct the petitioner to appear before the Collector; direct the Collector to ascertame compliance with the 1989 order and pass appropriate orders if not complied

Pravinkumar Chottalal Doshi Vs the Collector Satara and Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

7-WP-5094.2013

¶2

sjs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE – CIVIL
WRIT PETITION NO.5094 OF 2013

¶4

Pravinkumar Chottalal Doshi.... Petitioner
Vs.
The Collector, Satara
& Ors..... Respondents

¶5

Ms Shivani Kunder for the Petitioner.
Ms M.P. Thakur, AGP, for the Respondents.

¶6

DATED: APRIL 25, 2014

¶7

P.C:

¶8

1.Heard the learned counsel appearing

¶9

for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the
respondents.

¶10

2.Our attention was invited to the order

¶11

dated 7-4-1989, passed by this Court in Writ
Petition No.1318 of 1988, filed by the
predecessor of the petitioner. This petition
was repeatedly adjourned to enable the learned

¶12

sjs 7-WP-5094.2013

¶13

AGP to ascertain whether any order was passed

¶14

by the Collector in terms of the said order.

¶15

The information which is obtained by the
petitioner under the Right to Information Act,
2005 does indicate that the Collector did not
pass any specific order in terms of the said
orderdated7-4-1989.Theimpugned

¶16

communication dated 25-7-2011 (Exhibit-J to the
petition) has been issued on a subsequent
application made by the petitioner directly to
the Hon'ble Chief Minister on the Lokshahi Din.

¶17

3.Without knowing the fate of the

¶18

earlier application which is pending before the
Collector, the petitioner could not have
directly applied to the Hon'ble Chief Minister.

¶19

4.Even today the learned AGP has not

¶20

received any instructions regarding compliance
with the earlier order dated 7-4-1989.

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

sjs 7-WP-5094.2013

¶23

5.Hence we dispose of this petition by

¶24

passing the following order:

¶25

A.The impugned communication dated
25-7-2011 (Exhibit-J to the petition) is hereby
set aside. The application dated 2-5-2011
submitted by the petitioner stands disposed of;

¶26

B.We direct the petitioner to appear

¶27

before the District Collector, Satara on
19-5-2014 at 11:00 a.m.. The petitioner will
produce an authenticated copy of this Order
before the Collector on that day;

¶28

C.The Collector shall ascertain whether

¶29

any order has been passed in compliance with
the order dated 7-4-1989, passed by this Court
in Writ Petition No.1318 of 1988. If such order
has been passed, a copy thereof be provided to
the petitioner within a period of two weeks
from 19-5-2014;

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

sjs 7-WP-5094.2013

¶32

D.If order has not been passed, the

¶33

Collector shall pass appropriate order in terms
of the order of this Court dated 7-4-1989
within a period of two months from 19-5-2014;

¶34

E.We make it clear that if the order
made by the Collector is adverse to the
petitioner, the petitioner will be entitled to
challenge the same in accordance with law;

¶35

F.The petition is disposed of in above

¶36

terms.

¶37

G.All concerned to act upon the
authenticated copy of this order.

¶38

Page 4 of 4

Pravinkumar Chottalal Doshi v. the Collector Satara and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravinkumar Chottalal Doshi v. the Collector Satara and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Bandopant Chodankar Vs the Divisional Cast Scrutiny Committee No. 2 and Ors.

Shri. Shantaram Yamaji Pujari Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Water Resources Dept and Ors.

Shri. Manohar Balisha Naik and Ors. Vs the Collector, Sangli and Ors.

Shripati Govind Gurav and Ors. Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Shri. Pramod Anandrao Rananavare and Ors. Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune and Ors.

Musa Kamalshah Murshad and Anr. Vs Narsayya Narayan Adam (Master) and Ors.