Disposed

Subhash Tatyarao Lohar v. the State of Maharashtra through He Principle Secretary

Bombay HC8 Jun 2023WP/5162/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed Writ Petitions seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the State to decide pending appeals quickly. The Court directed the respondents to decide the appeals within 180 days and permitted petitioners to appear for status on 20.06.2023.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to decide pending appeals within 180 days; petitioners permitted to appear on 20.06.2023 at 12 noon.

Subhash Tatyarao Lohar Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

905wp5162-23

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

905 WRIT PETITION NO.5162 OF 2023

¶4

SUBHASH TATYARAO LOHAR

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY

¶7

WITH

¶8

916 WRIT PETITION NO.6045 OF 2023

¶9

MAINABAI SHANKARRAO PARSALGE

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶12

Mr. S. N. Lale-Yelwatkar, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. S. K. Tambe & Mr. S. W. Munde, AGPs for Respondents-State

¶13

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, &
 Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 8th June, 2023

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

1.The petitioners have preferred appeals before the Cabinet
Minister for Revenue (Re-settlement) at Mumbai on 2nd February, 2023.
These Writ petitions are preferred on 17th March, 2023 praying for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to the State to decide those appeals.

¶16

2. Normally, we would not entertain a Writ Petition which is

¶17

filed within a short time of preferring an appeal or proceedings, for
seeking directions. However, since it is now above three months and

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

905wp5162-23

¶20

the learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that notices are yet not
issued, that we deem it appropriate to direct an early decision in the
pending appeals, subject to their maintainability.

¶21

3. In view of the above, these petitions are disposed off .

¶22

4.We expect the respondents to decide the pending appeals
within a period of 180 days with effect from 20.06.2023, if not yet
decided, provided the same are maintainable in law. We permit the
petitioners to appear before the respondents on 20.06.2023 in
Mantralaya, Mumbai at 12 noon.

¶23

5. The learned AGPs graciously submit that they would intimate the respondents of this order.

¶24

( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

¶25

JPChavan

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Subhash Tatyarao Lohar v. the State of Maharashtra through He Principle Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Tatyarao Lohar v. the State of Maharashtra through He Principle Secretary

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

Balaji Nagnath Wadkar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

M/S Skycon Infra Construction through Its Proprietor Sajid Yunus Kachchhi and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Rajkumar Alias Rajendra Tulshiram Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Umar Shaikh Chand Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Others

Avinash Chandrakant Bahiwal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Mainabai Shankarrao Parsalge Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary