Allowed

Shri. Laxman Krishna Pande v. the State of Maharashtra, through Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Jan 2015WP/6047/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order keeping a sawmill licence renewal application pending pending disposal of a civil suit. Court held pendency alone is insufficient grounds and set aside the order directing decision on merits without adjudicating the licence application itself.

What did the court decide?

Communication dated 23rd July 2013 set aside; authority directed to decide application on merits pending decision on the suit.

Shri. Laxman Krishna Pande Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2015)

wp6047

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION NO.6047 OF 2014

¶5

Laxman Krishna Pande ...Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr.Vivek Salunke i/b Prashant Bhavake for the
petitioner

¶7

Ms M.P.Thakur, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶8

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.K.MENON, JJ.
 DATE : JANUARY 5, 2015

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned AGP for State. Considering the
narrow controversy involved in this petition, the
same is immediately taken up for final disposal.

¶11

2The case of the petitioner is that he is the
owner of the land more particularly described in
paragraph 2 of the petition. The petitioner has set
up a saw mill on the said land. The grievance in
the petition is that an application made by the
petitioner for renewal of the licence to run the saw
mill has been ordered to be kept pending till the
final disposal of the Regular Civil Suit No.41 of
2013 filed by the petitioner himself in the Court of
CivilJudge(J.D.),Kagal.Theimpugned
communication dated 23rd July 2013 addressed to the
petitioner by the respondent No.3 records that in

¶12

2 wp6047

¶13

view of pendency of the aforesaid suit and in view
of the opinion of the District Government Pleader,
the application made by the petitioner for transfer
and/or renewal of licence shall be kept pending till
the disposal of the suit.

¶14

3We have perused the plaint in Regular Civil
Suit No.41 of 2013. It is true that the plaint
relates to the property on which saw mill in
question is situated. The dispute raised in the
plaint is as regards the legality and validity of
the agreement of sale dated 24th December 2003
allegedly executed by and between the petitioner and
the defendant in the said suit.

¶15

4It is not the case of the respondents that
there is any prohibitory order passed by any
Competent Court which prevents the Competent
Authority from deciding the pending application of
the petitioner. Suffice it to say that the
application could not have been kept pending only on
the ground of the pendency of the aforesaid suit.

¶16

5Therefore, the application which is kept
pending will have to be decided in accordance with
law. However, we make it clear that the application
will have to be decided on its own merits and no
adjudication has been made by this Court on the
question whether the petitioner is entitled to the
reliefs sought in the pending application.

¶17

6Accordingly, we dispose of the petition by

¶18

wp6047

¶19

¶20

passing the following order:

¶21

(I) We set aside the communication dated 23^rd July 2013 (Exhibit-J to the petition);

¶22

(II) We direct the concerned Authority before whom the application made by the petitioner is kept pending to decide the same in accordance with law;

¶23

(III) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the said application;

¶24

(IV) The application which is pending contained a prayer for renewal of licence up to 31^st December 2014.We make it clear that even if a fresh application is made by the petitioner, the same shall be decided in accordance with law notwithstanding pendency of the Regular Civil Suit No.41 of 2013;

¶25

(V) Writ Petition is disposed of on above terms.

¶26

(A.K.MENON,J.)

Shri. Laxman Krishna Pande v. the State of Maharashtra, through Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Laxman Krishna Pande v. the State of Maharashtra, through Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Forest 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

Laxman Baliram Kamble (Since Decd) and Anr. Vs the Slum Rehabilation Authority and Ors.

Jivan S/O Bhasakarrao Thorat and Anr. Vs R. v. Bhuskute and Anr.

Central Railway Employees Co-Operative Society Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Others

Mr. Jayant Lunawat and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kashinath Gajanan Mhatre and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Housing Dept and Ors.

Kisanrao Dhavji Rathod Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary to the Ministry of Revenue and Anr.