The High Court directed the concerned authorities to decide the petitioner's pending representations within eight weeks on their merits. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Direction to Respondents No.1 to 3 to decide petitioner's representations within eight weeks.
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.
skn 1 8-WP-2002.2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2002 OF 2019
Uttam Dadarao Mhaske. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. … Respondents.
Mr.Pradeep Zende for the Petitioner. Ms.A.S.Pai, GP for Respondent No.1. Ms.Bhavana Punalekar i/b. Shakuntala Wadekar for Respondent No.6.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY KASHINATH KASHINATH NANOSKAR NANOSKAR Date: 2021.10.08 16:30:13 +0530
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 6 October 2021.
P.C. :
The Petitioner has filed this petition for a limited relief
as under:
(b) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order, direction or writ, thereby directing the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to decide the letters-cum-representations of the Petitioner dated 21st June 2016 and 13th August 2018 within a period of one month or within such other period from the order of the Court, as the Court deems fit.
skn 2 8-WP-2002.2019.doc
Neither the counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents nor the learned APP is able to inform the Court whether the representations are decided as on date.
3. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Uttam Dadarao Mhaske
The State of Maharashtra
others
Nitin Jamdar
Sarang V. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
