Dismissed

Priyanka W/O Praful Mohate v. State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Town Planning Division, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC20 Oct 2021WP/1812/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition as prematurely filed as no decision had been taken by the State Government under Section 55A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act, 1965. An order of constitutional validity of any such future government decision was restored to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of the petition as having been prematurely filed, with a direction that an impugned Government decision shall not take effect for one week.

Priyanka W/O Praful Mohate Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 W.P.No.1812.2021

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1812 OF 2021

¶4

Priyanka W/o Praful Mohate,

¶5

..VS..

¶6

State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Town Planning Division,
Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors.,

¶7

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders

¶8

Shri D. V. Chauhan, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri D. P. Thakare, Addl.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Ms. A. R. Taiwade, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 to 16.

¶9

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

¶10

 DATED: 20.10.2021

¶11

1. Heard.

¶12

2.So far no decision has been taken by the State
Government as required under Section 55A of the
Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and
Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short the “Act of
1965”). Therefore, we are of the view that this petition
has been prematurely filed and accordingly this petition
deserves to be disposed of.

¶13

3.The petition is disposed of as having been
prematurely filed. However, this has been done keeping
all questions open and also subject to the direction that

¶14

2 W.P.No.1812.2021

¶15

in case decision of the Government it may take under
Section 55A of the Act of 1965 goes against the
petitioner, same shall not take effect for a period of one
week from the communication of the order. No costs.

¶16

JUDGE

¶17

JUDGE

¶18

Kirtak

Priyanka W/O Praful Mohate v. State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Town Planning Division, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka W/O Praful Mohate v. State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Town Planning Division, Mumbai 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

Mr. Sanjay Surendrakumar Arora Vs the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services and 5

Mr. Sunil S/O Nandalal Malviya Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Mumbai and Another

Shri. Yogiraj Sushikshit Berojgar Nagrik Seva Saha. Sanstha Mary., Thr. President Ravindra Sapkal Vs the Municipal Commissioner, Amravati Municipal Corporation, Amravati

M/S. Vinayak Stones, Amravati, Thr. Authorised Partner, Saket S/O. Ajay Mehta Vs State of Maharashtra, in the Ministry of Revenue and Forest, Thr. Its Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Ramkrushna S/O Pandurangji Katre Vs State of Maharashtra, Ministry of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai through Secretary and Others

Deepali Wd/O Vilasrao Pande Vs State of Maharashtra, Ministry of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai through Secretary and Others