Disposed

Smt. Kanchan Jagdish Angadi v. the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jun 2016WP/7038/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the rejection of interim relief due to lack of reasoning in the Additional Commissioner's order. The High Court set aside the order, directed a reasoned decision within two months, and stayed the original disqualification order pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the unreasoned order; directed a reasoned order within two months; stayed the impugned order of disqualification pending appeal.

Smt. Kanchan Jagdish Angadi Vs the Collector… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

16-WP-7038-2016.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.7038 OF 2016

¶4

Smt. Kanchan J. Angadi Versus The Collector, Kolhapur & Ors.

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

..Respondents

¶7

Mr. Tejpal Ingle, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. Molina P. Thakur , AGP for the State. Ms. S.Jadhav i/by S.B.Jadhav, Advocates for R.No.3.

¶8

Coram : SHANTANU KEMKAR & M.S.KARNIK, JJ.

¶9

Date : 24^th June, 2016.

¶10

P. C. :

¶11

NOT ON BOARD. TAKEN ON BOARD. PRODUCTION GRANTED IN VIEW OF URGENCY.

¶12

2 Heard the parties through their Counsel. By filing this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27/05/2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune, thereby rejecting the petitioner's prayer for interim relief in the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 5/5/2016 passed by the Collector, Kolhapur.

1/2

Shivgan

16-WP-7038-2016.doc

3 Having gone through the averments made in the Petition and having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are inclined to dispose of this Petition by directing the Additional Commissioner, Pune to decide the petitioner's Appeal as expeditiously as possible but not later than 2 months from the date of appearance of the parties before the Additional Commissioner, Pune. Parties to appear before the Additional Commissioner on 1/07/2016. However, as we find that while rejecting the petitioner's prayer for interim relief, the Commissioner has not applied his mind and has failed to consider that the impugned order is order of disqualification against which the petitioner has filed the statutory Appeal. In the circumstances, it was incumbent upon the Commissioner to have passed a reasoned order. Having not done, we set aside the order and direct that till the matter is finally decided by the Additional Commissioner, Pune, the order dated 5/5/2016 passed by the Collector, Kolhapur shall remain stayed. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶17

4 Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order.

¶18

[M.S.KARNIK, J.]

¶19

[SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.]

¶20

2/2

¶21

Shivgan

Smt. Kanchan Jagdish Angadi v. the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kanchan Jagdish Angadi v. the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

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

Prakash Purshottamdas Shah and Anr. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 6 Ors.

Berry'S Hotel Private Limited Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation through Municipal Commissioner and Anr.

Ganesh Ramchandra Mane and Anr. Vs the Municipal Corp. of Greater Bombay and 4 Ors.

Sanjay Deu Laxman Jadhav and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Rural Development and Water Resources and Ors.

Jan Jagran Manch, through Shri. Sachin D. Raskar Vs the Executive Engineer, Public Work Division, Thane and Ors.

Smt. Shahin Abubakar Mujawar Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.