Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra and Others v. Ratan Anandrao Suradkar

Bombay HC19 Oct 2018CA/7241/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil application, the State of Maharashtra sought a six-month extension to complete an inquiry against the respondent, which had not been initiated as per a prior court order. The court granted a four-month extension and directed authorities to consider the respondent's requests for documents during the inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Extension of four months granted for the completion of the inquiry; respondent directed to consider requests for documents.

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs Ratan… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

7241.18ca

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7241 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1918 OF 2017

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & ors

¶6

..APPICANTS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Ratan Anandrao Suradkar

¶9

..RESPONDENT

¶10

Mr A.R. Kale, A.G.P. for the applicants;
Mr M.R. Wagh, Advocate for the respondent

¶11

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & MANISH PITALE,JJ. DATE : 19th OCTOBER, 2018

¶12

ORAL ORDER :

¶13

Heard learned A.G.P. appearing for the

¶14

applicants.

¶15

2.By way of present applicant, the applicant

¶16

State prays extension of time of six months. By

¶17

order dated 30th January, 2018 petitioner i.e.
State of Maharashtra was permitted to initiate

¶18

inquiry against the respondent in accordance with
law.

¶19

(2)

¶20

3.Learned Counsel appearing for the

¶21

respondent opposed the application on the ground
that clause (ii) of the order is not complied with.

¶22

Then he submits that even initiation of inquiry
took place after a month of the order passed by
this Court.

¶23

4.If the respondent is having any grievance
of non compliance of the order and more
particularly non compliance of clause (ii) of the
order, he is at liberty to avail remedies as
available in law if so advised. There is some
written submission of learned Counsel for the
respondent that though initiation of inquiry itself
was expected to be done at the earliest, the
applicant took some considerable time and it is
apprehension of the respondent that then there
would be again delay in concluding the inquiry.

¶24

5. Considering this submission of learned

¶25

Counsel for the respondent, we allow the

¶26

application partly though the applicant prays for
extension of period of six months, we grant four
months to the applicant from the date of the order
passed by us today.

¶27

6.It was also submission of learned Counsel

¶28

for the respondent that the respondent in the

¶29

process of inquiry requested for certain documents

¶30

but those documents are not provided to the
respondent. If such request is made by the

¶31

respondent, the authorities, needless to state, to
consider the request on the merits of the

¶32

application and pass appropriate orders.

¶33

7.With these directions, the application is
disposed of.

¶34

(MANISH PITALE)(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
JUDGE JUDGE

¶35

Tupe

The State of Maharashtra and Others v. Ratan Anandrao Suradkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra and Others v. Ratan Anandrao Suradkar

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

Adiwasi Chetna Parishad Thorough Chairman Shridhar Khandu Salunke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sunil Vishwanath Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Maharashtra State Public Prosecutors Association through Its President S P Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shrigonda Taluka Sakhar Kamgar Union Shramik Ahmednagar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Namdeo Bhagaji Kharat Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Somnath Rajaram Ahire Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others