Disposed

Vikram Pundlikrao Thale and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC2 Sept 2021WP/4958/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad disposed of three writ petitions filed by individuals against the State of Maharashtra. The court declined to consider the grievance regarding compensation quantum, directing petitioners to approach the District Court instead.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; petitioners directed to approach the District Court for compensation.

Vikram Pundlikrao Thale and Others Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 994-wp 4956-2021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4956 OF 2021

¶4

Gorakh Bhaurao Pawar

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Kiran D. Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Sumeet s. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No. 4.

¶10

WITH

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO. 4958 OF 2021

¶12

Vikram Pundlikrao Thale
and others

¶13

.. Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶16

.. Respondents

¶17

Mr. Kiran D. Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Sumeet s. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No. 4.

¶18

WITH

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO. 4985 OF 2021

¶20

Uddhav Gajanan Pawar.. Petitioner

¶21

Versus

¶22

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶23

.. Respondents

¶24

Mr. Kiran D. Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Sumeet s. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No. 4.

¶25

1 of 2

¶26

2 994-wp 4956-2021.odt

¶27

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

¶28

 DATED : 02nd September, 2021.

¶29

PER COURT:-

¶30

.The respondents have raised an objection that it is only the
District Court who can decide the quantum of compensation.

¶31

2. We are not inclined to consider the grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petitions.

¶32

3. It would be open for the petitioners to approach the concerned District Court for redressal of grievance and the payment of compensation amount as is permissible under the statute.

¶33

4. With these observations, writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶34

5. Whatever applications are filed by the petitioners before the authority, the authority may remit the same to the District Court as may be permissible under law.

¶35

( R. N. LADDHA )( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶36

P.S.B.

¶37

2 of 2

Vikram Pundlikrao Thale and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Pundlikrao Thale and Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nabega Yusufzai Farooque Mohd Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dilip Maharu Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manoj Pralhad Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajesh Laxminarayan Madhekar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Nilesh Vasudeo Mahajan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shobhabai Lalchand Jaiswal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others