Allowed

Vishal Mahindra Gada @ Shah v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Mar 2015WP/1754/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner withdrew prayers to quash criminal proceedings and recover seized license/car as they had been returned. Court allowed petition to ensure an un-decided police representation regarding illegal clamping was decided expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Authorities to decide the petitioner's representation dated 23/02/2013 on illegal clamping within three months and communicate the decision.

Vishal Mahindra Gada @ Shah Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

wp 1754 of 2013.doc

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1754 OF 2013

¶5

Vishal Mahindra Gada @ Shah … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and ors …. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Prakash Naik, for the Petitioner

¶7

Smt. V.R. Bhosale, A.P.P., for the Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM : P.V.HARDAS &

¶9

DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 27^TH MARCH, 2015.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Mr. Prakash Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner, states on instructions that the petitioner does not press for the relief prayed for by the petitioner at prayer clause (a) to the petition i.e. for quashing of the proceeding Criminal Case No.298 of 2013 pending on the file of 8^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, as the trial has already commenced.

¶13

Mr. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner further states on instructions that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 21^st

¶14

Page No.1 of 3

¶15

wp 1754 of 2013.doc

¶16

December, 2013, the petitioner had applied to the trial Court for return of his driving license which has now been returned to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner also does not press for the relief prayed for by the applicant at prayer clause (b) to the petition.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the Maruti Car of the petitioner bearing Registration No.GJ-5/CR-1750 which had been seized by the police has been returned to the petitioner and the petitioner, therefore the petitioner does not press for the relief prayed for by the applicant at prayer clause (c).

¶18

Mr. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner states that a representation dated 23^rd February, 2013 has already been addressed to the Senior Police Inspector with copies to the Commissioner of Police and to the other Senior Police Officers, for taking action against police officers, who had illegally put clamp on the car which had been parked opposite the building in which the petitioner resides. Admittedly the reply filed by the learned APP does not indicate whether the said representation has been decided or not. The petitioner has obviously not been communicated any decision which has been arrived at by the authorities on the representation, submitted by the petitioner on 23^rd February, 2013.

¶19

We, therefore, allow this petition in respect of prayer clause

Page No.2 of 3

wp 1754 of 2013.doc

(d) to the petition to the extent indicated below.

¶24

We, therefore, direct the authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 23^rd February, 2013 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from the receipt of writ of this Court and communicate the decision thereof to the petitioner. The petitioner obviously will be at liberty to file such proceedings as are necessary in law for challenging the order on the representation if adverse to the petitioner.

¶25

Rule is, thus, made absolute in terms as indicated above with

¶26

no orders as to costs.

¶27

[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.]

¶28

Page No.3 of 3

Vishal Mahindra Gada @ Shah v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Mahindra Gada @ Shah v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip G.Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bapu Shivaji Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dudhnath Dwarkaprasad Varma Vs Mahesh Madhukar Pogurlekar and Ors.

Opara Chilezein Joseph and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arjun Puna Soni Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anwar Abdul Aziz Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra