Dismissed

Shri. Nayan Pandurang Pathare v. the State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Feb 2024WP/5807/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought an adjournment to withdraw the writ petition after his wife's death, but the court dismissed it outright. The court held that an alternate remedy under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act existed and no reason to interfere was found.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to adopt an appropriate alternate remedy.

Shri. Nayan Pandurang Pathare Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by VARSHA VARSHA VIJAY VIJAY RAJGURU RAJGURU Date: 2024.02.28 10:44:32 +0530

¶2

12-wp-5807-2015.doc

¶3

varsha

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 5807 OF 2015

¶6

Shri Nayan Pandurang Pathare … Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra through … Respondents Government

¶9

Mr. Nikhil Rajani i/b. M/s. V. Deshpande & Co. for Petitioner. Mrs Savita P., AGP for the State.

¶10

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 26^th FEBRUARY, 2024

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

This petition was adjourned on 30^th January 2024, to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to take instructions from the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is willing to adopt appropriate alternate remedy available to the petitioner. On 20^th February 2024, none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, by way of last chance to enable the petitioner's advocate to take instructions, the petition was listed today under the caption for ‘Dismissal’.

¶13

Today learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time on the ground that he was unable to take instructions from the petitioner as

¶14

Page no. 1 of 2

¶15

12-wp-5807-2015.doc

¶16

the petitioner’s wife expired on 1^st February 2024. He submitted that he was being instructed by the petitioner's wife, hence, he was unable to take instructions. He therefore request for further time.

¶17

Perusal of the petition indicates that the petition has been verified by the petitioner himself and the petitioner’s wife does not appear to be in picture. The petition is filed for challenging the recovery certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that there is an alternate remedy to file revision application under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. However, he only seeks time to take instructions from the petitioner for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file an appropriate proceedings.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to adjourn the petition, as the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy. I do not see any reason to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. Hence, Writ petition is dismissed.

¶19

However, petitioner will be at liberty to adopt an appropriate alternate remedy for challenging the order impugned in this petition as permissible in law. Writ petition is therefore dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.

¶20

(GAURI GODSE, J.)

¶21

Page no. 2 of 2

Shri. Nayan Pandurang Pathare v. the State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Nayan Pandurang Pathare v. the State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader 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

Dilip Vitthal Varkute Vs Mr. Hiralal Sonawane and Ors.

Kavin Parshotam Tulsiani Thr Poa Prashotam Tulsiani Vs Maharashtra Real Estae Regulation Authority Thr the Chairman and Ors.

Taher Razzak Sayyad and Anr. Vs Prabhat Tara Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Shri. Tukaram Anil Dhamdhere Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shivaji Bhiru Lad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Sunil Shivram Jadhav and Ors. Vs Arjun Niws Sra Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors.