Disposed¶18

Raj S/O Manoj Shukla v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Revenue Dept., State Secretariat, Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Feb 2026WP/1322/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sand trading/stock point licence renewal left undecided by District Collector, Gondia; Bombay HC Nagpur Bench (Kilor & Wakode, JJ., 12.02.2026) disposed of writ petition with direction to decide renewal application dated 21.11.2024 (Annexure-C) within four weeks, communication of decision within two weeks thereafter, no costs; original licence granted 06.05.2024, valid till 31.12.2024.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 - District Collector, Gondia, to decide the renewal application dated 21st November, 2024 within four weeks of receipt of the order; petitioner to serve a copy of the order within one week; decision to be communicated within two weeks thereafter; no costs. ¶18

Raj S/O Manoj Shukla vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Revenue Dept., State Secretariat, Mumbai and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

118.WP.1322.2026

¶2

2026:BHC-NAG:2430-DB

¶3

1/2

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1322 OF 2026

¶6

Raj S/o. Manoj Shukla Vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

¶9

Appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

¶10

Mr. Ankit Vastani, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Tajwar Khan, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4/State.

¶11

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATE : 12.02.2026

¶12

Heard Mr. Ankit Vastani, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶13

The petitioner was granted a trading/stock point licence for sand trading by respondent No.3 on 6^th May, 2024. The tenure of the said licence was from 6^th May, 2024 to 31^st December, 2024.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the application dated 21^st November, 2024, which is at record page No.18 (Annexure-C), seeking renewal of the aforesaid licence. The petitioner had thus applied for renewal of his trading licence before the expiry of the earlier licence on 31^st December, 2024.

¶15

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, till date, the said application has not been decided by respondent No.2.

¶16

118.WP.1322.2026

¶17

2/2

¶18

In view of the above, we dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to respondent No.2 – District Collector, Gondia, to decide the application dated 21^st November, 2024, which is at record page No.18 (Annexure-C), seeking renewal of the trading licence of the petitioner, within a stipulated period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶19

The petitioner undertakes to produce a copy of this order before respondent No.2 within one week from today.

¶20

The decision taken thereupon shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter. No costs.

¶21

(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

¶22

Vijaykumar

¶23

Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 12/02/2026 20:18:45

Raj S/O Manoj Shukla v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Revenue Dept., State Secretariat, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj S/O Manoj Shukla v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Revenue Dept., State Secretariat, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay S/O Laxman Malaiye vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Ministry of Tribal Development, Mumbai and Another

Prakruti Foundation, Thr. Its President, Deepak Bharatsingh Dixit vs Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi and Others

Pralhad S/O Damduji Jumde vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Nagpur and Others

Raju Baburao Pisal vs the Honble Registrar (Admin.), Honble Bombay High Court Bench at Nagpur and Ors.

Nalini Madhur Komawar vs Reserve Bank of India, Thr. Chief General Manager-in-Charge, Dept. of Regulation, Mumbai and Anr.

Gopal Narayandasji Panpalia and Others vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.