Vivek Sureshchandra Mehta Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Div. Pune and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Vivek Sureshchandra Mehta Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Div. Pune and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both writ petitions disposed of with all objections to the entertainability and merits of the Review Petitions kept open; Petitioners to file their response to the impugned notices within a month, to be considered according to law; Divisional Commissioner directed to dispose of the Review Petitions within 6 months of the response; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned show-cause notices issued by the Divisional Commissioner calling upon the Petitioners to respond to the Review Petition filed by Respondent No.2 should be quashed and set aside at the threshold on the grounds that the Review Petitions are barred by limitation and meritless.

Court's answer

Arguments about the bar of limitation or merits can always be raised before the Divisional Commissioner in response to the impugned notices.

Ratio / Principle

There is no reason to interdict the process midway or to interfere with or quash the notices at the threshold; if the arguments have merit or the review petition is not maintainable or meritless, it will be dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner.

Key takeaways

If, despite the Petitioners' objections, the Review Petitions are allowed or any adverse order is made, it remains open to the Petitioners to take out such proceedings as are available under the law and reiterate all permissible contentions; no case is made out to interfere with notices that merely call upon the petitioners to respond.ratio¶24
The petitions are disposed of by keeping open all objections that the petitioners might have to the entertainability of the Review Petition or to its being allowed on merits.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ., 7 May 2025 — Writ Petitions Nos. 1505 and 1506 of 2024 (Vivek Sureshchandra Mehta and Sureshchandra Prakashchandra Mehta v. The Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division and Ors.). The Petitioners challenged show-cause notices dated 27 September 2023 and 18 October 2023 issued by the Divisional Commissioner requiring them to show cause why the Review Petition filed by Respondent No.2 should not be entertained or allowed; they sought quashing of the notices on the grounds of limitation and absence of merit. Held: objections as to limitation, maintainability or merits can always be raised before the Divisional Commissioner in response to the notices, and there is no reason to interdict the process midway or quash the notices at the threshold; if the Review Petitions are nevertheless allowed or any adverse order is made, the Petitioners remain free to take out such proceedings as are available under the law and reiterate all permissible contentions. Petitions disposed of with all objections kept open; response to the notices to be filed within a month and considered according to law; Divisional Commissioner directed to dispose of the Review Petitions within 6 months of the filing of the response. No costs.

SAYYED Digitally signed SAEED by SAYYEDSAEED ALI ALI AHMED ALI AHMED Date:2025.05.08 ALI 17:10:26 +0530

15.WP.1505.24 AND 1506.24.DOCX

Revati

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.1505 OF 2024

Vivek Sureshchandra Mehta … Petitioner

Versus

The Divisional Commissioner Pune … Respondents Division and Ors.

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.1506 OF 2024

Sureshchandra Prakashchandra Mehta … Petitioner

Versus

The Divisional Commissioner Pune … Respondents Division and Ors.

Mr Hrishikesh Shinde , for the Petitioner. Mr Aditya Deolekar, AGP for Respondent.

CORAM : M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.

DATED : 7 May 2025

PC:-

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The challenge in both these Petitions is to the notices dated 27 September 2023 and 18 October 2023 issued by the Divisional Commissioner requiring the Petitioners to show cause why the Review Petition filed by the Respondent No.2 is not entertained or allowed.

Page 1 of 3

15.WP.1505.24 AND 1506.24.DOCX

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Review Petitions were filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. He submits that, even on merits, there is no case for review. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned notices should be quashed and set aside.

Arguments about the bar of limitation or merits can always be raised before the Divisional Commissioner in response to the impugned notices. If there is merit in the arguments or if the review petition is not maintainable or meritless, the same will be dismissed. But there is no reason to interdict the process midway or interfere with or quash the notices at the threshold.

If, despite the Petitioner’s objections, the Review Petitions are allowed or any order adverse to the interest of the Petitioner is made, it is always open to the Petitioner to take out such proceedings as may be available under the law and reiterate all permissible contentions. However, no case is made out to interfere with the notices, which only call upon the petitioners to respond to the Review Petitions.

Thus, these petitions are disposed of by keeping open all objections that the petitioner might have to the entertainability of the Review Petition or the allowing of such Review Petitions on merits.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the response to the impugned notices will be filed within a month

Page 2 of 3

15.WP.1505.24 AND 1506.24.DOCX

from today. This may be filed, and if filed, must be considered according to the law.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner then submits that the Divisional Commissioner may be directed to dispose of this Review Petition at an early date. The learned AGP supports this. The Division Commissioner is directed to dispose of these Review Petitions within 6 months of the Petitioner’s filing their response to the impugned notices.

All issues regarding the bar of limitation, maintainability, merits, merits etc., are left open.

Both the Petitions are disposed of. No costs.

(Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)

Page 3 of 3