A two-judge Bench disposed of Writ Petition No. 1694 of 2016 directing the respondent to decide on a submitted proposal by respondent No.4 within six weeks rather than later.
Direction to Respondent No.2 to decide on the proposal submitted by Respondent No.4 within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 35-wp1694-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1694 OF 2016
SAYYED SUJAT ALI SQUAWATALI (SULTANA)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Mr.S.V.Suryawanshi,advocatei/b.Mr.V.D.
Patnoorkar, advocate for petitioner
Mr.B.V.Virdhe, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3 –
State
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 15, 2016
PER COURT :
Heard.
2]We direct respondent no.2 to take a decision
on the proposal submitted by respondent no.4
dated 14th September, 2015, if the decision is
already not taken, as expeditiously as possible,
however, within a period of six weeks from the
date of this order and to communicate the decision
to respondent no.4.
2 35-wp1694-16.odt
3]The petition stands disposed in the above
terms.
4]The parties to act on authenticated copies of
this order.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.][S.S. SHINDE, J.]
kbp
1 issue framed by the court
Whether respondent No.2 must decide on respondent No.4's pension proposal within a specific timeframe.
SAYYED SUJAT ALI SQUAWATALI (SULTANA)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
S.S. SHINDE
SANGITRAO S. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court