Disposed

Ankur Seeds Private Ltd., through Its Executive Director Mr. Vishal Balawant Umalkar and Others v. Union of India, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi and Other

Bombay HC23 Jun 2016WP/2273/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition as a matter requiring no substantive adjudication due to lack of specific instances of rejection. It granted leave to petitioners to submit vehicle registration applications to the respondent for appropriate consideration.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to submit vehicle registration applications to respondent no.5 for suitable decision.

Ankur Seeds Private Ltd., through Its… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1/3

¶2

2306wp2273.14

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2273 OF 2014

¶5

(Ankur Seeds Private Ltd. and others vs. Union of India and others)

¶6

__________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶7

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

¶8

DATED : JUNE 23, 2016

¶9

We have heard Adv. Kilor with Adv. Tejas Kene for petitioners, Adv. Kathane for respondent nos.2 to 4 and Senior Adv. Manohar with Adv. Naik for respondent no.5. There is no appearance for respondent no.1 Union of India.

¶10

It appears that initially effort was to have the grievance considered in public interest. Thereafter petition is being pressed as a writ petition. Petitioner no.1 is a Company formed under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner nos.2 to 6 are Gram Panchayats constituted under Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1950. They have chosen to approach this Court through their Sarpanchs.

¶11

Grievance of petitioners is that though vehicles of petitioner no.1 and all residents of

¶12

2306wp2273.14

¶13

respective Gram Panchayats fall under the term “Local Personal Traffic” or “Local Commercial Traffic”, their vehicles are not being registered.

¶14

Adv. Kilor for petitioners during arguments has invited our attention to certain proceedings presided over by Collector of the District.

¶15

We are not ready and willing to consider the hypothetical challenge. The petitioners have not pointed out to this Court any specific instance in which a resident approached respondent no.5 for registration of vehicle and that application was not entertained or rejected.

¶16

During arguments, Adv. Kilor submitted that respondent no.5 is not even accepting such applications.

¶17

Learned Senior Adv. Manohar appearing for respondent no.5 has denied the statement. According to him, no such applications are received by respondent no.5.

¶18

In this situation, we are not required to go into any disputed question. We grant petitioner no.1 and residents within area of respondent nos.2 to 6 leave to submit their applications to respondent no.5 with necessary proof. If such applications are received by respondent no.5, respondent no.5 shall

¶19

2306wp2273.14

¶20

3/3

¶21

take suitable decision upon the same at the earliest. With the above directions and keeping all rival contentions open, we dispose of the petition. No costs.

¶22

JUDGE JUDGE

¶23

khj

Ankur Seeds Private Ltd., through Its Executive Director Mr. Vishal Balawant Umalkar and Others v. Union of India, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankur Seeds Private Ltd., through Its Executive Director Mr. Vishal Balawant Umalkar and Others v. Union of India, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi and Other

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

Jagdish S/O Manikrao Khairkar Vs the Executive Director, Region Iii, Maha. State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., and 2 Others

Shri P.G. Sakhre and 5 Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Department of School Education (Primary), Thr. Its Principal Secretary and 2

M/S. Nagpur Distillers, through Its Managing Partner Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Department of Urban Devp. Mantralaya and 3 Others

Shri Mir Jafar Hussain S/O Sayyed Mohiuddin and 12 Others Vs City of Nagpur Municipal Corporation Nagpur through Its Municipal Commissioner and 4 Others

Vikas Nandlal Rai Vs the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Yavatmal and 3 Others

Sau. Sarita Rameshwarpant Yawale (Erstwhile Ku. Sarita Ramdaspant Wath) Vs Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla Parishad, Amravati and Another