Disposed

Renuka Siddheshwar Waghmare and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Feb 2022WP/181/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the non-action on an appeal filed against an externment order. The High Court refused to fix a time-bound framework for deciding the appeal, citing pendency and COVID-19, but directed the appellate authority to consider the matter keeping a prior order in mind.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with directions to the appellate authority to consider the appeal keeping the order dated 8th October 2021 in mind.

Renuka Siddheshwar Waghmare and Ors. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 181 OF 2022

¶3

Renuka Siddeshwar Waghmare & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus

¶4

Ld. Divisional Commissioner and Others.

¶5

..Respondents.

¶6

Mr. Chandrakant S. Jadhav for the Petitioner. Mr. M. H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶7

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ. Date : February 15, 2022 .

¶8

P. C. :

¶9

A very limited grievance is raised in the present writ petition. As such the petition is forthwith taken up for hearing disposal, by consent of the parties.

¶10

The Petitioners were subjected to an externment proceeding and the competent authority vide an order dated 10^th February 2021 externed the Petitioners from Pune district, for a period of two years. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioners immediately on 18^th February 2021 filed an appeal before the appellate authority, i.e., the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. Photocopy of the appeal memo is placed on record at page no. 28 of petition. On the very day, i.e., 18^th February 2021, alongwith the appeal, Petitioner filed an application for grant of stay.

¶11

Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN RAMCHANDRA RAMCHANDRA PATIL PATIL Date: 2022.02.26 10:58:49 +0530

¶12

1 / 3

¶13

patilsr

¶14

The grievance raised in the petition is of non action, i.e., non hearing of either the application for grant of stay or the appeal on merits. The submission is that the delay in decision would frustrate the object of availing the remedy. Accordingly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner prayed for direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal submitted by the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible and within a time bound manner.

¶15

It may not be out of place to state here that raising this very issue, a petition was filed in this Court (Criminal Writ Petition No. 3535 of 2021) and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 8^th October 2021 disposed of the writ petition. When that petition came up before the Division Bench, a query was made to learned APP as to how many appeals were pending before the appellate authority and in response, learned APP submitted the data of pending appeals before the appellate authority and it was apprised to the Division Bench that 51 appeals of the year 2020 are pending whereas 115 appeals of the year 2021 are pending before the appellate authority. The reason was also submitted before this Court for the pendency of appeals and it was covid-19 pandemic. It was submitted before this Court that due to this unfortunate difÏculty, the hearing of appeals was suspended. In view of these facts, the Division Bench was of the opinion that it will not be possible for this Court to straightaway direct the early disposal of the

¶16

2 / 3

¶17

patilsr

¶18

Petitioner’s appeal as the said order will indirectly affct those who are waiting without approaching the Court. The Division Bench was pleased to further observe “There could be cases where out of turn disposal may be merited but we leave that to the discretion of the concerned Authority.”

¶19

Subsequently on 9^th February 2022 , an order was passed in Writ Petition No.320 of 2022, to which one of us (Justice Prasanna B. Varale) was party. In view of these facts, we are unable to allow the prayer of Petitioner to direct the appellate authority to decide the Petitioner’s appeal within a time bound framework. However, we dispose of the present writ petition with directions to the appellate authority to consider the aspect of deciding the appeal keeping the order dated 8^th October 2021 of this Court in mind. The petition is thus disposed of.

¶20

[Surendra P. Tavade, J.] [Prasanna B. Varale, J.]

¶21

3 / 3

¶22

patilsr

Renuka Siddheshwar Waghmare and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renuka Siddheshwar Waghmare and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Anubai Yadav Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Simran Rishi Grover Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajneesh Mathur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nikhil Deodas Shah and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nitin Laxminarayan Thard and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Roshni Manilal Thakkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.