Digambar S/O Datta Sontakke vs The State Of Maha. Thr. Dy. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5140 Bom

                                                                    17judg WP 2074.2020 .odt
                                              1

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

                         WRIT PETITION (WP) NO. 2074/2020

           Digambar S/o Datta Sontakke
           Aged 40 years, occ. Service,
           R/o. At. Post. Kajalamba,
           Tah. & District Washim.                                    ..... PETITIONER

                                     // VERSUS //

 1.       The State of Maharashtra,
          through its Deputy Secretary,
          Department of Establishment
          and Rural Development,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

 2.       Divisional Commissioner,
          Amravati Division, Amravati,
          Tah. & District Amravati.

 3.       Chief Executive Officer,
          Zilla Parishad, Washim,
          Tah. & Distt. Washim.                                 .... RESPONDENT(S)

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri M.D. Lakhey, Advocate for the petitioner
 Shri A.S. Fulzele, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2/ State
 Shri Amol Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no. 3.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                               CORAM :            SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                                  AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATED : 22/03/2021

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

SMGate

17judg WP 2074.2020 .odt

Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and all

the learned Advocates agreed that the audio and visual quality was

proper.

2. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. Heard finally by consent.

4. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed to decide the

representation of the petitioner dated 22.07.2020 and also

representation dated 22.02.2021 in accordance with law within a period

of eight weeks from the date of this order.

5. In case, the representation dated 22.02.2021 is decided by

respondent no. 3, there would be no need on the part of respondent no.

2 to decide the representation dated 22.07.2020. Accordingly, the writ

petition is allowed.

6. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

                           JUDGE                              JUDGE




 SMGate