Remanded

Rahul Krishna Chitalkar v. District Collector and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Jul 2016WP/7678/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner for Pune Division for lacking reasoning on grounds raised and failing to supply the petitioner with the opponent's submissions. The High Court set aside the order and remanded.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the Additional Commissioner for deciding the appeal afresh.

Rahul Krishna Chitalkar Vs District Collector and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Vina K. Sr.14.wp.7678 of 2016.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.7678 OF 2016

¶4

Rahul Krishna Chitalkar-Patil … Petitioner V/s. District Collector, Pune and Ors. ... Respondents

¶5

Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Joel Carios for the petitioner.

¶6

Mr. Asif Patel- AGP for the State.

¶7

Mr. Kunal Bhange for respondent No. 2.

¶8

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

¶9

DATE : 14 th JULY, 2016.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1 . Heard parties through their counsel. The grievance of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that the Appellate Authority while passing the impugned order has not taken into consideration the various grounds raised by the petitioner in the memo of appeal including the ground relating to limitation as provided under section 44(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Nagar Panchayat and Industrial and Township act 1965.

¶12

2 . We have gone through the order passed by the Appellate Authority (Additional Commissioner, Pune Division ) and we find while passing through the impugned order the Additional Commissioner has

¶13

1/2

¶14

Vina K. Sr.14.wp.7678 of 2016.odt

¶15

not taken into consideration the various grounds raised by the petitioner in the memo of appeal.

¶16

It is the case of the petitioner that the copy of submission of Mr. Ramesh Thorat which has been taken into consideration while passing the order has also not been supplied to the petitioner.

¶17

Having considered submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned order, we are of the view that the Additional Commissioner has not passed reasoned order in respect of the various grounds raised by the petitioner.

¶18

In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Additional Commissioner for deciding the appeal a fresh. The petitioner and respondent no.2 shall have to appear before the Additional Commissioner on 1^st August, 2016 at 11.00 am. The Additional Commissioner is expected to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible.

¶19

6. Petition is disposed of.

¶20

(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU. S. KEMKAR, J.)

¶21

2/2

Rahul Krishna Chitalkar v. District Collector and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Krishna Chitalkar v. District Collector 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

Palai Developers Private Limited and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Margaret @ June Stanley D'Souza Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Chembur Abhilash Co-Op.Hsg.Soc.Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Aziz Peerbhai Chokiya and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Nerul Roj Bazaar Vyapari Seva Sanstha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Chatrapati Parshuram Koli and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Govt. Pleader and Ors.