Disposed

Mahendrakumar Mahavirprasad Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC16 Dec 2019CAW/3336/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Nagpur disposed of a writ petition regarding the time frame for issuing a notification on lapsing of reservation. The court applied a three-month timeline based on a coordinate bench precedent despite not explicitly fixing a date in the current order.

What did the court decide?

The court applied a three-month time frame for the notification of lapsing of reservation based on a precedent, though no specific date was fixed.

Mahendrakumar Mahavirprasad Sharma Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

wp3602.18.O.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3602 OF 2018 (D)

¶5

(Mahendrakumar Mahavirprasad Sharma Vs. The State of Maharashtra thr. the
Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and others)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directionsCourt's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar’s Orders.

¶7

Shri G.K. Mundhada, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri Amit Kukday, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.

¶8

CORAM: SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND

¶9

MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.

¶10

DATE: 16th DECEMBER, 2019.

¶11

Civil Application (CAW) No.3336/2019 :

¶12

Heard.

¶13

While allowing the petition in terms of prayer
clauses A and B, this Court did not specify the time frame
within which the notification regarding lapsing of
reservation was to be issued by respondent no.1.
However, we had followed the view taken by coordinate
Bench of this Court in Pratap Tularam Ghogale & Ors. v.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2013(5) ALL
MR 1, in which, time of three months was granted to the
authority for doing a similar act i.e. issuance of notification
of the lapsing of reservation. Therefore, even though no
time frame has been fixed in this matter.
generally speaking, same time period, as is mentioned in
Pratap Tularam Ghogale’s case (supra), would govern the
issue involved in this petition.

¶14

The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶15

JUDGE

¶16

JUDGE

¶17

NSN

Mahendrakumar Mahavirprasad Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendrakumar Mahavirprasad Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Sanyasi Raju Venkata Surya Yerramilli and Another Vs the Shikshak Sahakari Bank Limited, Nagpur

The Majlis-E-Madarsa-E-Saifiya through President Anwar Khan Wahed Khan and Another Vs the State of Maha. Thr. Principal Secretary, Skill Development and Entrepreneurship Dept. and Other

Mohammad Idress S/O Abdul Bashir and Others Vs Asif Husain Munaf Husain, President Urdu Education Assocation, Amravati and Another

Majlis Madarsa-E-Islamia Society Thr. Joint Secretary Dastageer Ahmad S/O. Salim Ahmad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Home Department Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Pritam S/O. Raybhau Raut Vs the Sub Divisional Officer Chandur Railway Dist. Amravati and Another

Ekanath S/O Ganeshrao Suryavanshi and Another Vs Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Nagpur Thr Chief General Managar and Others