Petitioners challenged non-renewal of an excise license. Court noted the Commissioner had not yet decided and directed him to consider objections lodged by petitioners without a personal hearing.
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.
Order
2303wp1155-22
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 1155 OF 2022.
Shailendra Kailashchandra Sahu and others.
…. Petitioners.
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra and others. …. Respondents.
Mr.S.S. Khadse, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr.N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.S.N. Bhattad, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.
DATE : 23 MARCH 2022.
P.C.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Order
2303wp1155-22
2
Order
2303wp1155-22
3
to 5 states that Petitioners should not take adjournments as the aspect of renewal of license has to be considered prior to 1 April 2022. We do not think that, that possibility will arise as Petitioners have given their objections in writing and we do not expect the Commissioner to give any personal hearing to Petitioners.
(ANIL L. PANSARE, J) (NITIN JAMDAR, J)
Rgd
Shailendra Kailashchandra Sahu and others
State of Maharashtra and others
Nitin Jamdar
Anil L. Pansare
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
