High Court rejected writ petition challenging refusal to register a document. Court declined entertain W.P. for lack of exhaustion of alternative remedies, noting non-maintenance without prior representation. Petition disposed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 wp-599.19.docx
pmw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.599 OF 2019
Zuber Ibrahim Gholap Vs.
… Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents
Mr. R.P. Haka I/b. Mr. Sudhir V. Sadavarte for the Petitioner. Mr. S.B. Gore, AGP for the Respondent – State. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar for the Respondent No.5. Shahid I.A. Khan, Respondent No.5 is present.
CORAM : A.S.OKA AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATE : 3rd APRIL 2019.
P.C. :
. Not on Board. Taken on Board.
1 The petitioner has sought writ of mandamus enjoining the fourth respondent to accept a document for registration in accordance with the provisions of Registration Act, 1908. The case of the petitioner is that when he attempted to lodge a document for registration which was not accepted by the fourth respondent. Before approaching the writ Court for seeking a writ of mandamus, the petitioner has not moved the concerned authority demanding justice. Only on that ground, we decline to entertain this writ petition. The petition is disposed of. However, it will be open for the petitioner to make a representation to the fourth respondent. If such representation is made, the fourth respondent shall immediately decide the same in accordance with law.
1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition, filed without prior approach to the concerned authority, is maintainable.
Zuber Ibrahim Gholap
The State of Maharashtra
A.S. Oka
M.S. Sanklecha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
