Disposed

Nitesh Mohanlal Doshi v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC27 Apr 2018PIL/2/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL respondent directed to decide petitioner's representation regarding its date of filing. Court ordered Municipal Council to dispose of matter within three months with hearing of all concerned without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 to decide petitioner's representation dated 3rd October, 2016 within three months, subject to hearing all concerned.

Nitesh Mohanlal Doshi Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

28 pil 2 -17.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 2 OF 2017

¶4

Nitesh Mohanlal Doshi ..Petitioner

¶5

v/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents

¶7

Mr. Rakesh Agrawal for the Petitioner. Mrs. Geeta Shashtri , AGP for the Respondent/State. Mr. Sagar Patil for the M.C.G.M.

¶8

CORAM : RANJIT MORE &

¶9

SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,JJ. DATED : APRIL 27, 2018.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appears on

¶12

behalf of the respondent no.4, though served.

¶13

The learned Counsel for the petitioner at the outset makes a

¶14

statement that he is restricting this petition to the relief claimed in prayer clause (b) which reads as follows:

¶15

(b) In the alternate to prayer clause (a) above, this Honourable Court be pleased to direct respondent no.2 to decide complaint/notice dated 3^rd October, 2016 sent by

1 of 3

pps

28 pil 2 -17.doc

the petitioner by treating present petition as representation of the petitioner within period of 45 days or within such period as this Honourable Court deem fit and proper after following principles of natural justice.”

¶20

Thus, the petitioner has sought direction to the respondent no.2 to decide his representation dated 3^rd October, 2016. The learned AGP, as well as the learned Counsel for the B.M.C. have no objection if directions are issued to the respondent no.4 to that effect.

¶21

In the light of the above, we deem it fit to dispose of the petition by directing the respondent no.2 Municipal Council to decide the representation dated 3^rd October, 2016 filed by the petitioner (copy of which is at Exh. G to the petition ) as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶22

Needless to mention that the Commissioner/Addl. Commissioner shall hear all concerned, before passing any order. It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case. All

¶23

points and contentions are kept open. The representation dated 3^rd October, 2016 shall be decided independently, on its own merits and

2 of 3

pps

28 pil 2 -17.doc

in accordance with law.

¶28

In order to enable the Commissioner/ Addl. Commissioner to

¶29

comply with this Order, the petitioner shall remain present before him on 7^th June, 2018 along with copy of this order and copy of writ petition.

¶30

All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶31

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶32

3 of 3

¶33

pps

Nitesh Mohanlal Doshi v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitesh Mohanlal Doshi v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Shri. Anna Kishanrao More Vs State of Maharashtra , through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Satish@Baba Bhagwanrao Sanap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Registrar High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Renukadas Dattopant Vaidya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sachin Bhaurao Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pravin Manikrao Naik and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Urban Development Dept. Mumbai and Others

Pravin Rangnath Shirke and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sardar Jagdeepsingh Namberdar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dr. Mugdha S. Patki and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Neha Nalinkumar Yadgirikar Vs State of Maharashtra Thorugh Its Secretary and Ors.

Smt. Mahadevi Kavachale Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tararani Vidyapith and Anr. Vs the Registrar Shivaji University and Anr.

Tararani Vidyapith and Anr. Vs the Registrar Shivaji University and Anr.

Mr. Dinesh Nathu Patel and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.