Disposed

Anjani Mehta v. State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader High Court O.S. and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Apr 2019WP/994/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking expeditious disposal of guardianship applications pending before the Local Level Committee. The court directed the Committee to hear applications together and dispose them within three months while clarifying no adjudication on merits was made.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Local Level Committee to hear both applications together and dispose of them within three months.

Anjani Mehta Vs State of Maharashtra through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

994-18-WP-3=.doc

¶2

Uday S. Jagtap

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 994 OF 2018

Anjani Mehta

.. Petitioner

v/s.

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Mr. Yogendra Sharma a/w Ms. Pranali Mehra for the petitioner Ms. P.H. Kantharia, GP a/w Ms. Deepali Patankar, AGP for the respondent no.1 – State

¶11

CORAM : A.S. OKA & M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J.

¶12

DATED : 2^nd APRIL, 2019

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Perused the affidavit of Shri. Samadhan W. Ingle, Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban District. The affidavit notes that two Local Level Committees are functioning in Mumbai. One Committee is for Mumbai District and the other Committee is for Mumbai Suburban District. Both the Local Level Committees have been constituted in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999. It is revealed from the affidavit that from 2002 till March, 2017, the Local Level Committee for Mumbai District

1 of 3

994-18-WP-3=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

disposed off 787 applications for guardianship and the Local Level Committee for the Mumbai Suburban disposed of 745 applications for guardianship. The affidavit discloses that the applications made by the petitioner and the second respondent for guardianship are being considered by the Committee for Mumbai District. There is a statement made that three months' time will be required by the Local Level Committee to decide the applications from the date of submission of the documents online by the petitioner and the second respondent. The learned Government Pleader states that both the petitioner and the second respondent have already filed online applications as per the procedure.

¶19

The learned Government Pleader on instructions states that the applications made by the petitioner and the second respondent will be heard together.

¶20

Considering the above discussion, we pass the following order:-

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(a) As both the petitioner and the second respondent have filed online applications for guardianship, in view of the statements made in the affidavit, we direct the Local Level Committee of

2 of 3

994-18-WP-3=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

Mumbai District to hear both the applications together and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today;

¶27

(b) The petitioner and the second respondent shall co-operate with the Local Level Committee for early disposal of the applications.

¶28

¶29

(d) For reporting compliance, the petition shall be listed under the caption of “directions” on 5^th July, 2019.

¶30

(e) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on merits of the applications made by the petitioner and the second respondent and all issues are kept open to be decided by the said committee.

¶31

(f) The affidavit filed today be returned to the learned Government Pleader for correcting inadvertent errors. The learned Government Pleader to resubmit the affidavit during the course of the day after correcting the errors.

¶32

(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶33

(A. S. OKA, J.)

¶34

3 of 3

Anjani Mehta v. State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader High Court O.S. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjani Mehta v. State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader High Court O.S. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhandup Vakratunda Sra Chs Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader High Court Bombay and 4 Ors.

Mangala Tukaram Bhavekar Vs Deputy Collector (Encroachment and Eviction) and Competent Authority and 4 Ors.

the commissioner ofcentral excise -thane-ii Vs m/s milton polyplas (i) p.ltd and 2 Ors.

Nitin Hargovind Vishngara Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Sunil Patil and 7 Ors. Vs the Charity Commissioner and Anr.

Puran Parviz Niroo and 8 Ors. Vs the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 2 Ors.