Disposed

Gautam Dashrath Londhe v. the Revenue Minister State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Sept 2022WP/506/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged earlier orders setting aside previous decisions and remanding a matter to the Collector. The High Court noted the Collector had partly heard the appeal and allowed the parties to appear for a fresh hearing where the Petitioner could submit additional documents before a final decision within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to submit additional documents; parties to appear for fresh hearing on 21st September 2022; Collector to decide within three months.

Gautam Dashrath Londhe Vs the Revenue Minister… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

10-wp-506-2021.doc

¶2

Sonali

¶3

Digitally signed by IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY SONALI SONALI MILIND CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MILIND PATIL PATIL Date: 2022.09.12 WRIT PETITION NO. 506 OF 2021 17:21:08 +0530

¶4

Gautam Dashrath Londhe ...Petitioner
 Versus
The Revenue Minister State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. Sumit V. Khaire, for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP , for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7-State.
Mr. Sandeep S. Salunkhe, for the Respondent Nos. 8 & 9.

¶6

 CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
 DATED : 12th SEPTEMBER 2022

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

1.The Petitioner has impugned the order dated 9th November
2020 passed by the Respondent No.1-Revenue Minister, State of
Maharashtra. By the impugned order, order dated 11th September
2017 passed by the Additional Collector and order dated 5th June
2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division has been
set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Collector.

1/3

10-wp-506-2021.doc

Sonali

2.Mr. Sandeep Salunkhe, the learned Advocate appearing for
Respondent Nos. 8 and 9, who are the Applicants before the Collector
submits that Collector has heard the matter and now the same is
pending for passing orders.

¶13

3.Mr. Khaire, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states
that the Petitioner was not heard by the Collector. In any case, it is
common ground that Collector has not yet passed the order. It is the
contention of the Petitioner that Petitioner has received some
additional documents and the Petitioner intends to produce the same
before the Collector. Mr. Salunkhe, the learned counsel appearing for
the Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 after taking instructions states that the
said Respondents have no objection if said documents are produced
and Collector hears the matter. He submits that the Respondent Nos.
8 and 9 be heard again including regarding said document. In view of
this, there is no impediment for Collector to hear the case again.

¶14

4. In view of above, following order is passed.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(i) Both the contesting parties viz. the Petitioner and the

2/3

10-wp-506-2021.doc

Sonali

Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 to remain present before the Collector

¶21

who has partly heard RTS Appeal No. 157 of 2016 on 21st

¶22

September 2022 at 11.00 a.m.

¶23

(ii)On that day, the Petitioner to submit additional documents
and copies of the same be supplied to the Respondent Nos. 8

¶24

and 9. The Collector to fix the schedule of hearing on 21st
September 2022. The Collector is requested to decide the RTS
Appeal No.157 of 2016 within a period of three months after

¶25

hearing all the parties afresh.

¶26

(iii)All contentions of parties are kept open.

¶27

5. The Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶28

 MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

¶29

3/3

Gautam Dashrath Londhe v. the Revenue Minister State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam Dashrath Londhe v. the Revenue Minister 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

Sou. Kasturi Tukaram Patil vs Smt. Lalita Arun Patil and Ors.

Ramesh Sitaram Donde vs Manda Narayan Ahire and Ors.

The Union of India vs State of Maharashtra and 8 Ors.

Jayanti Jagannath Raut and Ors. Vs Tahsildar Vasai and Ors.

M/S Idemitsu Lube India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Grocery Markets and Shops Board for Brihan Mumbai and Ors.

Santacruz (West) Education Society Thr. Trustee and Authorized Dr. Seema Gupta vs Madanmohan Chandrabhan Gupta