Allowed

Gangabhishan Kashinath Thaware v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC20 Apr 2022WP/3899/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition filed by an agricultural worker under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court directed the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representations within six weeks. If rejected, the petitioner may file appropriate legal proceedings. Respondent 5 was deleted by amendment.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Regional Joint Director to consider the petitioner's representations and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

Gangabhishan Kashinath Thaware Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

919-WP-3899-22.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3899 OF 2022

¶5

Gangabhishan s/o. Kashinath Thaware, Age 58 years, Occu. Agril. and Social Work, R/o. Anandgaon, Taluka Majalgaon, District Beed

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Department of Co-operation and Textile, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

¶9

The Commissioner of Sugar Maharashtra State, Pune – 411 005

¶10

The Regional Joint Director (Sugar), Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.

¶11

The District Collector, Collector Office, Beed, District Beed

¶12

The Managing Director, N.S.L. Sugar Ltd. Unit – III Jai Mahesh, Pawarwadi, Taluka Majalgaon, District Beed .. Respondents …

¶13

Mr. Bhagwan R. Sable, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. A. R. Kale, AGP for Respondents – State

¶14

CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA & S. G. MEHARE, JJ. DATE : 20-04-2022

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : R. D. DHANUKA, J.) :-

¶16

Rule. Learned A. G. P. waives service of notice for the

¶17

respondents – State. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶18

919-WP-3899-22.odt

¶19

¶20

Heard finally with consent of parties.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to delete respondent no. 5 from the cause title of the petition. Leave as prayed for is granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith.

¶22

By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for writ of mandamus for an order and direction to decide the representations dated 22.11.2021 and 27.12.2021 submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not seek relief against respondent no. 5. Statement is accepted.

¶23

Respondent no. 3 – The Regional Joint Director (Sugar), Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad, is accordingly directed to consider and dispose of the representations made by the petitioner before the said authority and pass appropriate orders within six (06) weeks from the communication of this order and communicate the order that would be passed to the petitioner within one (01) week from the date of passing such order.

¶24

If the representation/s of the petitioner is/are decided in favour of the petitioner, the consequential benefits shall be granted to the petitioner within four (4) weeks from the date of

¶25

919-WP-3899-22.odt

¶26

¶27

passing of such order in favour of the petitioner.

¶28

If the representation/s of the petitioner is/are rejected, the petitioner would be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings as permissible in law.

¶29

Writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

¶30

Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶31

The parties shall act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶32

( S. G. MEHARE ) ( R. D. DHANUKA ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶33

rrd

Gangabhishan Kashinath Thaware v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangabhishan Kashinath Thaware 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Narayan Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ajaysing Bhimsing Patil Vs Pavneet Kaut the Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Aurangabad and Another

Ambadas Rameshrao Dornale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Another

Balaprasad Shivraj Rayalwad Under Natural Guardian Father Shivraj Laxmanrao Rayalwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bhimsing Kocharyabhai Valvi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Siddharth Suresh Bagul and Others