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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief: both writ petitions disposed of with all objections to the entertainability and merits of the Review Petitions kept open; Petitioner to file response to the impugned notices within a month; Divisional Commissioner directed to dispose of the Review Petitions within 6 months of such response; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitions should result in quashing of the Divisional Commissioner's show-cause notices at the threshold, interdicting the review process midway. +1 more

Court's answer

Objections as to limitation, maintainability and merits can be raised before the Divisional Commissioner in response to the impugned notices; if the review petition is not maintainable or meritless, it will be dismissed there.

Ratio / Principle

No case was made out to interfere with the notices, which merely call upon the petitioners to respond to the Review Petitions; if any adverse order follows, the Petitioners remain free to take such proceedings as are available in law and reiterate all permissible contentions.

Key takeaways

All issues regarding the bar of limitation, maintainability and merits of the Review Petitions were expressly left open by this Court.ratio¶9
The Divisional Commissioner is directed to dispose of the Review Petitions within 6 months of the Petitioners filing their response to the impugned notices; the response (to be filed within a month) must be considered according to law.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Bombay (M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ., 7 May 2025) refused to quash at the threshold show-cause notices dated 27 September 2023 and 18 October 2023 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, calling on the Petitioners to answer review applications filed by Respondent No.2. Held: contentions that the Review Petitions are time-barred, not maintainable or meritless can equally be urged before the Divisional Commissioner in reply to the notices, so there is no ground to interdict the process midway or interfere with the notices. Both writ petitions (WP 1505/2024 – Vivek Sureshchandra Mehta; WP 1506/2024 – Sureshchandra Prakashchandra Mehta) were disposed of keeping all objections open, with liberty to challenge any adverse order, a direction to the Petitioners to file responses within a month, and a direction to the Divisional Commissioner to decide the Review Petitions within 6 months of the responses. 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