Disposed

Laxmanrao Manikrao Bhosle v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC16 Dec 2021WP/13819/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition where the applicant sought withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh petition containing additional causes of action. The court held this was barred by Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC. Instead, the petition was disposed of by directing the District Collector to decide a pending representation within a specific timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.3 to decide the pending representation dated 06/02/2018 on or before 28/02/2022 after affording opportunity of hearing.

Laxmanrao Manikrao Bhosle Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.13819 OF 2018

¶4

WITH CA/2276/2020 IN WP/13819/2018 WITH CA/3422/2019 IN

¶5

WP/13819/2018

¶6

LAXMANRAO MANIKRAO BHOSLE

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶9

Mrs.M.A.Deshpande, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 6.
Mr.R.N.Chavan h/f Mr.S.V. Kurundkar, Advocate for the applicant in CA
No.3422/2019.

¶10

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
 S.G. MEHARE, JJ)

¶11

 DATE : DECEMBER 16, 2021

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

1. On 13/12/2021, we had passed the following order :-

¶14

"1. Shri Adkine, the learned Advocate has conveyed to the
learned AGP that the petitioner desires to withdraw this petition.
However, when the matter was called out, neither Mr.Adkine nor
the learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Dinkar Kamble were
present. Even after flashing the name on the display board and
upon granting a pass-over, none has appeared.

¶15

2. In view of the above, we are listing this petition on
16.12.2021, for passing orders, either of withdrawal or of
dismissal."

¶16

khs/Dec. 2021/13819

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

2.The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits on instructions
that as there are several lacunas and deficiencies in the pleadings of the
petition, the petitioner desires to withdraw this petition with liberty to
file an appropriately drafted petition. No new cause of action is sought
to be introduced in the fresh petition. It is further stated that as the
amendment would be too large, it would be appropriate for the
petitioner to withdraw the petition and file a fresh petition in the same
cause.

¶19

3. Considering that the request of the petitioner would be hit by

¶20

Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, we do not find that his case would fall
under Rule 1[3(b)].

¶21

4.Having perused the petition and upon hearing the learned
Advocate for the petitioner, we find that one representation dated
06/02/2018 seeking return of a portion of a land, which was already
acquired for extension of Gavthan, is pending before the District
Collector, Nanded. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that
the said representation may be decided, if not already decided, within a

¶22

time frame.

¶23

khs/Dec. 2021/13819

¶24

5.In view of the above, this petition is disposed off. Respondent
No.3 / District Collector, Nanded would decide the representation dated
06/02/2018 on it's own merits, on or before 28/02/2022. If the
procedure requires an opportunity of hearing, the District Collector
would serve a notice on the petitioner and after affording an
opportunity of hearing, would pass the order on the merits of the
representation.

¶25

6. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the grievance voiced by the petitioner.

¶26

7. Pending civil application would not survive and stands disposed

¶27

off.

¶28

 ( S.G. MEHARE, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

¶29

khs/Dec. 2021/13819

Laxmanrao Manikrao Bhosle v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmanrao Manikrao Bhosle v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Sanghmitra Bahu Uddeshiya Magasvargiya Vikas Sanstha, Aurangabad through Its President P K Dabhade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pratap Bhaskar Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanghmitra Bahu Uddeshiya Magasvargiya Vikas Sanstha, Aurangabad through Its President Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Laxmanrao Manikrao Bhosle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anand Lakshmanrao Bhosle Vs Laxmanrao Manikrao Bhosle and Others

Satish Balasaheb Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others