Allowed

The Jyotsna Mahila Utpadan Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Thr Its President v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Sept 2023IA/14051/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this interim application, the High Court of Bombay recalled an order dismissing a civil writ petition for failure to remove office objections. The court recognized the reasons for delay as unsatisfactory but restored the petition due to lack of opposition, directing the petitioner to remove objections within two weeks or face dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition St. No. 2841 of 2020 is restored to file and will be heard on merits if office objections are removed within two weeks.

The Jyotsna Mahila Utpadan Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Thr… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

9-IA-14051-2023

¶2

Pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 14051 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2841 OF 2020

¶5

The Jyotsna Mahila Udyogik Utpadan Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. .. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Rushikesh G. Patil for applicant.

¶9

Ms. R. A. Salunkhe, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3 & 6/State. Mr. Niranjan Shimpi for respondent nos.4 & 5/UoI.

¶10

CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

¶11

DATE: 4^th SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

The present Interim Application seeks recall of the order dated 15^th February, 2023 passed by the Learned Registrar Judicial-I, by which, the captioned Civil Writ Petition came to be dismissed for failure of the Petitioner to remove office objections.

¶14

Learned counsel for the Applicant has invited our attention to the reasons set out in the Application for condonation of delay. We must note that the reasons set out for the condonation of delay are not wholly satisfactory and could have been more clearly explained. However, since there is no reply opposing the restoration and fair stand adopted by

¶15

¶16

9-IA-14051-2023

¶17

the opposing counsel for the Respondents, we find that it is in the interest of justice to grant the Applicant one opportunity to prosecute the Civil Writ Petition. The Writ Petition (St) No. 2841 of 2020 is restored to file. Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads as under: -

¶18

“(a) this Honourable Court be pleased to condone the delay caused in filing present application and recall the order dated 15.02.2023 passed by Learned Registrar Judicial-I in Civil Writ Petition St No. 2841 of 2020 and restore the said Writ Petition on its original file and hear the same on merits.”

¶19

However, we make it clear that in the event the Petitioner does not remove office objections within a period of two weeks from the date of this order being uploaded, the Petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.

¶20

Interim Application is accordingly disposed of.

¶21

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶22

Digitally signed by PRAVIN PRAVIN DASHARATH DASHARATH PANDIT PANDIT Date: 2023.09.04 17:33:05 +0530

¶23

The Jyotsna Mahila Utpadan Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Thr Its President v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Jyotsna Mahila Utpadan Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Thr Its President v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

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

Sharp Services Vs the Deputy Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission

M/S. Abhishek Enterprises Thr. Its Prop. Mr. Radheshyam Mevalal Gupta Vs S. P. Enterprises Thr. Its Prop. Mr. Kamlakar Devnandan Yadav

Irfan Imamuddin Suse and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Deptment of Rural Depvelopment and Ors.

Jeevan Builders vs Madhu Jeevan Co-Op Housing Society Limited

Anirudh K. Datta, Sole Proprietor Datta and Datta Associates vs the State of Maharashtra

Probir Manoj Das vs Ketan a. Shah and 2 Ors.