Gumansingh v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In the light of the pendency of the said representation, submitted by the petitioner, we are inclined to allow this writ petition and accordingly, allow this petition and direct the respondent No.2 to decide the said representation of the petitioner, if pending, in accordance…
Judgment
Cause title
2. The State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Department of Industry, Energy & Labour, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32 Development Commissioner (Industries), Directorate of Industries, New Administrative Building, Opposite Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32
(Copies of respondent Nos.1 & 2 to be served through office of Government Pleader, Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad) ... .....
Shri S.S. Phatale, Advocate holding for
Shri M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondents ..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 6th August, 2010
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.):
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent 2 of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent No.2 – Development Commissioner (Industries), Maharashtra State, Mumbai to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner on 9.12.2009. By the aforesaid representation, the petitioner has sought deemed date of promotion and has raised several grounds justifying the grant of the said relief.
In the light of the pendency of the said representation, submitted by the petitioner, we are inclined to allow this writ petition and accordingly, allow this petition and direct the respondent No.2 to decide the said representation of the petitioner, if pending, in accordance with law, within period of four months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner.
Rule is made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.)
(P.V. HARDAS, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.