Disposed

Smt. Anita G. Kitturkar., v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC20 Mar 2017WP/44/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought intervention regarding the allotment of a plot. The court disposed of the petition after the respondent undertook to re-examine the application unaffected by impugned decisions.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed off after respondent undertook to re-examine the allotment application within six months uninfluenced by impugned decisions.

Smt. Anita G. Kitturkar., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 44 OF 2017

¶3

SMT. ANITA G. KITTURKAR., Versus STATE OF GOA, THR. ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS.,

¶4

... Petitioner

¶5

... Respondents

¶6

Mr. Prasheen Lotlikar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate for respondent no.3.

¶7

Coram:ANOOP V. MOHTA & NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.

¶8

Date:20th March, 2017

¶9

FINAL ORDER:

¶10

The learned Counsel appearing for the parties make a statement that this petition can be disposed off only by the following common orders dated 11/01/2017 and 06/02/2017 passed by the Division Bench (Coram:- F. M. REIS & NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ) of this Court:

¶11

"Order

¶12

Date:- 11th January, 2017

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶15

Shri D. Pangam, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3, upon instructions, states that respondent no.3 shall reexamine the application for allotment of plot to the petitioner uninfluenced by the impugned decision, in accordance with law.

¶16

WP/44/2017

¶17

¶18

In view of the said statement of the learned Counsel, nothing survives in the above petitions. All the above petitions stand accordingly disposed off keeping all the contentions of both the parties open.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date:- 6th February, 2017

¶21

P.C. :

¶22

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶23

Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3, upon instructions, pointed out that the respondent no.3 shall re-examine the application for allotment of plot to the petitioner uninfluenced by the impugned decision in the above petition in accordance with law within six months from today. It is further submitted that in similar circumstances, the Writ Petitions no.934, 935 & 937 to 940 of 2016 were disposed off by this Court, on the basis of such statement. In view of the above, the statement of Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 upon instructions is accepted. Consequently, the petition stands disposed off accordingly. Needless to say all contentions of both the parties on merits are left open."

¶24

The present petition is accordingly disposed off on the same terms and reasons.

¶25

It is made clear that here also the impugned decision in the

¶26

WP/44/2017

¶27

¶28

above petition is in accordance with law within six months from today.

¶29

Petition stands disposed off accordingly.

¶30

NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J.

¶31

ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.

¶32

Smt. Anita G. Kitturkar., v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anita G. Kitturkar., v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmikant v. Palekar. Vs State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Mr. Ravindra Prakash., Vs Director General, Dri and 7 Ors.

Mr. Pradeep Mishra., Vs the Police Inspector, Crime Branch, Ribander and Anr.

Mr. Derick Jesus Gomes., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

South Goa Planning and Development and Authority, Thr. Its Member Secretary, Mr. Ashok Kumar., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Shri. Damodar Babaji Ghode., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.