Disposed

Shhri. Madhav Bhagwantrao Dhamale v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Home Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jul 2014WP/5947/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions filed by license holders regarding pending applications for renewal of Eating House Licenses. The High Court directed the Licensing Authority to decide the pending applications within six weeks of receiving the court order, keeping merit contentions open. Petitions disposed on these terms.

What did the court decide?

Direction to second Respondent (Licensing Authority) to decide pending license renewal applications within six weeks of receiving this order.

Shhri. Madhav Bhagwantrao Dhamale Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp-5947n5948.14

¶2

Ash

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5947 OF 2014 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5948 OF 2014

¶5

WP NO.5947 OF 2014

¶6

Shri Madhav Bhagwantrao Dhamale. .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents –

¶7

WP NO.5948 OF 2014

¶8

Shri Bhausaheb Sopanrao Bhoir. .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents

¶9

Shri D.B. Savant for the Petitioner. Shri V.S. Gokhale, AGP for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 25TH JULY 2014.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners in both the Petitions and the learned AGP for the Respondents.

1 of 3

wp-5947n5948.14

Ash

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners pointed out that the Petitioners in both the Petitions were holding Eating House License (Certificate of Eating House). It is pointed out that the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.5947 of 2014 made an Application for renewal of the license on 7^th April 2014. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.5948 of 2014 has filed such Application on 25^th April 2014. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, on instructions, states that both the Applications for renewal of their respective licenses are still pending. The learned AGP has no instructions on this aspect. Considering this limited controversy, we dispose of these Petitions by passing the following order.

¶18

ORDER :

¶19

(a) We direct the Petitioners in both the Petitions to produce an authenticated copy of this order before the second Respondent which is the Licensing Authority;

¶20

(b) In case the Applications for renewal of the license/permit made by the Petitioners are still pending, we direct the second Respondent to decide

2 of 3

wp-5947n5948.14

Ash

the said Applications within a period of six weeks from the date on which the authenticated copy of this order is produced before the said Authority;

¶25

(c ) All contentions on merits of the Applications are kept open;

¶26

(d) The Petitions are disposed of on above terms.

¶27

( A.S. CHANDURKAR, J ) (A.S. OKA, J.)

¶28

3 of 3

Shhri. Madhav Bhagwantrao Dhamale v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Home Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shhri. Madhav Bhagwantrao Dhamale v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Home Dept 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

Shishupal Shankar Prabhavalkar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sonal S. Khanolkar and Anr. Vs Union of India, through Director, Dept of Personnel and Training and Ors.

Shishupal Shankar Prabhavalkar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Gajanan Damodar Shelar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Yogiraj Constructions, through Partner, Manish Kulkarni and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Mr. Prakash Shankarlal Ostwal and Ors. Vs the Malegaon Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner and Ors.