Quashed

Mrs. Jumana Vahanvati v. State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader High Court O.S. and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jan 2016WP/3030/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's refund claim. The High Court, upon receiving an instruction from the Revenue Authority to refer the matter back after a personal hearing and issue a speaking order, quashed the rejection communication and restored the claim to the authority. The petition was disposed of in these circumstances.

What did the court decide?

The communication at Exhibit "C" was quashed and set aside. The refund claim was restored to the file of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to be decided with a personal hearing and speaking orde

Mrs. Jumana Vahanvati Vs State of Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

29-OSWP3030-14.DOC

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3030 OF 2014

¶4

Mrs. Jumana Vahanvati…Petitioner
Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra, through the Principal …Respondents
Secretary, Relief & Rehabilitation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai & 3 Ors.

¶6

Mr. Manish A. Malpani, with Mr. Tejas Luniya, for the Petitioner.
Mr. N.P. Pandit, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶7

CORAM:S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &
G.S. PATEL, JJ.
DATED:8th January 2016

¶8

PC:-

¶9

1.The Petitioner's refund claim having been rejected by the
Respondents, this Writ Petition. The refund claim has been
rejected by the communication at Exhibit “C” to the Petition.

¶10

2.At the hearing of this Petition, Mr. Pandit, learned AGP has
produced a copy of the communication from the Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune addressed to the
Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. Pandit informing him that he
should request this Court for a remand of the case back to the
Authority and the Authority will not insist on its communication at

¶11

1 of 2

¶12

29-OSWP3030-14.DOC

¶13

Exhibit “C” being upheld. The copy of the said communication is
taken on record and marked “X” for identification.

¶14

3.In the light of this written instruction to Mr. Pandit, we
quash and set aside the communication at Exhibit “C” and restore
the refund claim to the file of the Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune.

¶15

4.The refund claim shall be decided after giving a personal
hearing to the Petitioner and with a speaking order. All contentions
of the Petitioner and as raised in the Petition as well are kept open.

¶16

5.Needless to clarify that in the event of any adverse finding or
order, the Petitioner can approach the Competent Court.

¶17

6. The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶18

(G. S. PATEL, J.)(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶19

2 of 2

Mrs. Jumana Vahanvati v. State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader High Court O.S. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Jumana Vahanvati v. State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader High Court O.S. and 3 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

Sunil Shantisarup Gupta Vs Dept. of Legal Affairs and 17 Ors.

Mr. Taga Ram Meena Vs Industrial Development Bank of India and 2 Ors.

Thomas John Kurian Vs Union of India and Anr.

Jitendra Kumar P Jain and Another Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Saleem Ahmed Vs State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Joyce Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Registrar of Companies and 2 Ors. and Urban Infrastructure Trustees Limited (Applicant)