Dismissed

Raju Bhaskarrao Mohitkar v. the State of Maha., State Excise, Mumbai Thr. Its Secretary and Others

Bombay HC8 Mar 2022WP/1334/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought a direction that the Respondent Collector comply with an order passed by the Commissioner, State Excise, under Section 137(2) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. The Court directed the Commissioner to take action to enforce his own order and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Visited the Commissioner to ensure compliance with his own order under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act.

Raju Bhaskarrao Mohitkar Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

0803wp1334.22

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1334 OF 2022

¶6

Raju Bhaskarao Mohitkar ... Petitioner

¶7

Versus -

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents

¶9

Shri S.S. Jagtap, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶10

Shri N.R. Rode, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 8 MARCH 2022

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

The Petitioner is seeking a direction to the Respondent Collector to comply with the order passed by the Commissioner, State Excise, dated 9 September 2021. This order was passed on an appeal filed under Section 137(2) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949.

¶15

2 0803wp1334.22

¶16

If the Commissioner as an appellate Authority under the Act has passed an order and it is not being complied with, it is the duty of the Commissioner to ensure that his own orders are complied with. The litigants ought not to driven to this Court for mere execution of the executive orders. This gives rise to needless litigation.

¶17

We direct that if the Petitioner approaches the Commissioner making this grievance, the Commissioner should look into the same and take necessary action to enforce the order passed by him at the earliest.

¶18

Placing our disapproval on record, we dispose of this petition.

¶19

(ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

¶20

khj

¶21

Digitally Signed By:KAMAL HUNDRAJ JESWANI Signing Date:09.03.2022 18:35

Raju Bhaskarrao Mohitkar v. the State of Maha., State Excise, Mumbai Thr. Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Bhaskarrao Mohitkar v. the State of Maha., State Excise, Mumbai Thr. Its Secretary 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

Satish S/O Lokchand Patle Vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Education, New Delhi and Ors.

Ku. Aditi D/O Vikas Swami (Minor), Thr. Guardian Shri. Vikas Vinay Swami Vs the State of Maharashtra,Thr. Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. Mumbai and Another

Swastik Berojgaranchi Swayam Nagri Sewa Sahkari Sanstha Thr. Its President, Rajesh Jagannath Kale Vs State of Maha. Thr. Director Comm. of Health Services, Dept. of Public Health, Pune and Anr.

Vikas S/O Baddu Ade and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Collector, Yavatmal and Others

Vijaymala Krishna Asankar and Another Vs State of Maha., Thr. Principal Secy., Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Muhammad Iftekhar Abdul Salam Vs Maharashtra State Council of Examination, through Its Commissioner and 3 Others