Vimal Purshottam Chavan vs Mahadeo Nilkanth Jadhao And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3598 Bom

 WP 2134.16.odt                               1
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                      WRIT PETITION NO.2134 OF 2016

 Vimal Purshottam Chavan,
 Aged about 52 years,
 Occupation-Cultivation,
 Resident of Gunji, Tahsil-
 Dhamangaon Railway,
 District-Amravati.                                ..               PETITIONER

                               .. VERSUS ..

 1]     Mahadeo Nilkanth Jadhao,
        Aged about 40 years,
        Occupation-Cultivation,
        Resident of Gunji, Tahsil-
        Dhamangaon Railway,
        District-Amravati.

 2]     Sub-Divisional Officer,
        Chandur Railway,
        Office at Chandur Railway,
        District-Amravati.                         ..          RESPONDENTS

                     ..........
 Shri Alok Daga, Advocate for petitioner,
 Mrs. R.P. Tiwari, Advocate for respondent no.1,
 Mrs. A.R. Taiwade, AGP for respondent no.2.
                     ..........

                               CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
                               DATED : JUNE 23, 2017.


 ORAL JUDGMENT

                Rule.          Rule made returnable forthwith.               Heard

 finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the

 parties.



::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2017                      ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2017 00:32:04 :::
  WP 2134.16.odt                          2
 2]             The challenge in petition is to the order dated

 29.2.2016 passed by respondent no.2-Sub-Divisional Officer,

 Chandur Railway, District-Amravati rejecting the interim

 application for stay.


 3]             With the assistance of the learned counsel for the

 parties, this court has gone through the order passed by

 Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandur Railway.


 4]             It can be seen from the impugned order that

 without assigning any reason, order of rejection of stay

 came to be passed by respondent no.2 in one line. For want

 of reasons, order under challenge is unsustainable in law.

 Hence, on this short ground, writ petition deserves to be

 allowed in the following terms :

                                       ORDER

(i) Writ Petition No.2134 of 2016 is allowed.

(ii) Impugned order dated 29.2.2016 passed by

respondent no.2 is quashed and set aside.

(iii) Respondent no.2 is directed to decide application

for interim relief afresh within a period of two months by

giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

(iv) Parties to appear before respondent no.2 on

5.7.2017.

(v) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No

costs.

(Kum. Indira Jain, J.) Gulande, PA