Partly allowed

Hiralal Karsandas Patel (Bhakta) v. the State of Maharshtra

Bombay HC17 Mar 2016WP/1229/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed respondents to proceed with an inquiry initiated via a show-cause notice and direct disposal within three months, while keeping party contentions open and dismissing the plea to quash an earlier order.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents 1 and 2 to proceed with the inquiry and dispose expeditiously, preferably within three months.

Hiralal Karsandas Patel (Bhakta) Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WP. 1229-00

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 1229 OF 2000

¶5

Hiralal Karsandas Patel … Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 1671 OF 1997

¶7

Hiralal Karsandas Patel … Petitioner Vs. Joe JohnD Mello … Respondent

¶8

¶9

Ms. S. A. Mudbidri, for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. P. P. Kakade, AGP for the Respondent - State.

¶11

¶12

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & M. S. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : MARCH 17, 2016 PC.

¶13

By filing Writ Petition No. 1229 of 2000 under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction, directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith act upon a show-cause notice dated 23^rd May, 1995, which is annexed at Exhibit B to the petition and for quashing the

¶14

1 / 2

¶15

WP. 1229-00

¶16

order dated 24^th December, 1992, annexed at Exhibit A to the petition.

¶17

In our view, since the Collector has issued a show-cause notice, asking the Petitioner to show-cause as to why order dated 24^th December, 1992 should not be set aside, at this stage, it will not be possible for us to set aside the said order, which is at Exhibit A to the petition.

¶18

However, there is no impediment in directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to go ahead with the inquiry, which is initiated pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 23^rd May, 1995. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall expeditiously dispose of the said proceeding, preferably within three months. All contentions raised by both parties in this petition are kept open. Needless to state that if Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are satisfied that Respondent No. 3 has been granted NA permission by order dated 30^th July, 1996 without following due procedure in law, in that event, it is open for them to quash the said order. With these directions, Writ Petition No. 1229 of 2000 is disposed of.

¶19

So far as Writ Petition No. 1671 of 1997 is concerned, this matter will have to be decided by the learned Single Judge, as per the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. Office to place this matter before the learned Single Judge.

¶20

Vinayak Halemath

¶21

2 / 2

Hiralal Karsandas Patel (Bhakta) v. the State of Maharshtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiralal Karsandas Patel (Bhakta) v. the State of Maharshtra

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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Custodian Vs Rep for Release of Payment to Sarvesh Security for Security Purpose

Custodian Vs Rep With Reg to Spl Court Order Dt 16/10/2015 in Ma 32/14 in 523/05 Ajay Kayan

B.Raghav Vs the Custodian and Ors.

Hitesh Mehta Vs the Custodian

Rasila Mehta Vs the Custodian

Rina Mehta Vs the Custodian