Allowed

Chandan S/O. Dilip Trivedi v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Home Department Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC24 Aug 2022APPW/179/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for restoration of Writ Petition No.773/2017 allowed. Court set aside disposal order on ground of sufficient cause for absence. Notice issued to first three respondents only. Hearing list.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition No.773/2017 restored; notice issued to respondents 1-3, returnable in four weeks; hearing listed.

Chandan S/O. Dilip Trivedi Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1 / 4 902.wp773.2017

¶2

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

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPW) NO. 179 OF 2021 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 773 OF 2017

¶5

Chandan s/o Dilip Trivedi Vs.

¶6

State of Maharashtra, Thru. Its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors.

¶7

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶8

Mr. R.M. Daga, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. I.J. Damle, APP for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶9

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, &

¶10

VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ. DATE : 24.08.2022.

¶11

By this application, the applicant (original petitioner) is seeking restoration of Writ Petition No.773/2017.

¶12

Mr. Daga, learned counsel appearing for the applicant invited attention of this Court to the prayer clauses in the writ petition. He further invited attention of this Court to order dated 19.04.2018, wherein it was recorded that relief in terms of prayer clauses (i) to (iii) did not survive as the grievances reflected therein were satisfied, yet

¶13

Prity

¶14

2 / 4 902.wp773.2017

¶15

Rule was granted as regards prayer clauses (iv) to (vii), which included a prayer for initation of departmental enquiry against the original respondent No.3 (Collector). Thereafter, the counsel representing the applicant filed a Pursis seeking leave to withdraw his appearance on behalf of the applicant, which was allowed. Thereupon, by order dated 21.10.2021, notice was issued to the applicant, returnable on 16.11.2021 for engaging another counsel. Thereafter, attention of this Court was invited to the cause list of 16.11.2021, which recorded that the notice issued to the applicant for engaging another counsel was still awaited.

¶16

Yet on 16.11.2021, this Court passed an order, recording the fact that reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (i) and (ii) were already worked out. Thereafter, it was recorded that the Advocate representing the applicant had already withdrawn appearance and that the applicant had not pursued the matter any further. In this backdrop, this Court thought it fit to dispose of the petition by recording that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending.

¶17

Prity

¶18

3 / 4 902.wp773.2017

¶19

By relying upon the contents of the present application, it is brought to our notice that there was sufficient cause to demonstrate as to why the applicant could not remain present through counsel or otherwise on 16.11.2021. It is stated on affidavit that the applicant (original petitioner) seriously desires to pursue the writ petition for prayer clauses (iv) to (vii). It is emphasized that by the aforementioned order dated 19.04.2018, this Court, despite being aware that the reliefs claimed in prayer clauses (i) and (ii) did not survive, had granted Rule specifically for considering prayer clauses (iv) to (vii).

¶20

In this backdrop, it is vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that the writ petition deserves to be restored as the applicant/petitioner desires to pursue prayer clauses (iv) to (vii) in the writ petition.

¶21

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we are convinced that a case is made out by the applicant for restoration of the writ petition in order to consider prayer clauses (iv) to (vii).

¶22

Accordingly, the application is allowed.

¶23

Prity

¶24

4 / 4 902.wp773.2017

¶25

Writ Petition No.773/2017 is restored.

¶26

Issue notice only to respondent Nos.1 to 3, returnable in four weeks .

¶27

Issuance of notice to respondent No. 4 is dispensed with, for the reason that the reliefs sought in prayer clauses (iv) to (vii) are relevant only insofar as respondent Nos.1 to 3 are concerned.

¶28

Mr. I.J.Damle, APP waives service of notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶29

List this writ petition for hearing in usual course.

¶30

[VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.]

¶31

[MANISH PITALE, J.]

¶32

Signed By:PRITY S GABHANE Reason: Location: Signing Date:26.08.2022 18:04

¶33

Prity

Chandan S/O. Dilip Trivedi v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Home Department Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan S/O. Dilip Trivedi v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Home Department Mantralaya Mumbai 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

Disha D/O Manoj Boob Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O., P.S., Shegaon City, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldhana

Dipak @ Fanty Ashokrao Kawanpure Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary Home Dep. Mantralya MUMBAI-32 and 2 Others

Vijay Amrutrao Ghate and 6 Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Old City Akola Tq. and Dist.Akola and Another

Dayanidhi S/O Kashyachandra Pati Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Hudkeshwar Dist.Nagpur and Another

Anand S/O Madhukarrao Hatwar Vs State of Mha. Thr. Pso Hudkeshwar Ps Dist.Nagpur and Another

Ritesh S/O Ramdas Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police Station Frezarpura, Tq and Dist. Amravati and Another