Shri. Gajanan Sahakari Sut Girni, ... vs State Of Maharashtra, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7430 Bom

                                                                            WP 2330 of 2021.odt
                                                   1

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

                               WRIT PETITION NO.2330/2021

     PETITIONER :              Shri Gajanan Sahakari Sut Girni, Dhamangaon
                               Railway, District Amravati, through its Chairman
                               Shri Pratap Arunbhau Adsad, aged about 44 years,
                               resident of Dhamangaon Railway, Taluka
                               Dhamangaon Rly. District Amravati.

                                            ...VERSUS...

     RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, Co-operation Ministry,
                      through its Secretary, office of Mantralaya,
                      Mumbai.

                                2. Commissioner of Textile Industries, Nagpur
                                   having office at Civil Lines, Nagpur.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Shri Alok Daga, Advocate for petitioner
                                Shri A.A. Madiwale, AGP for respondents
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                       CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                               ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATE : 05/07/2021

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

1. Hearing is conducted through Video Conferencing and

all the learned Advocates agreed that the audio and video quality

was proper.

WP 2330 of 2021.odt

2. Heard Shri Alok Daga, learned Counsel for the

petitioner and Shri Amit Madiwale, learned Assistant Government

Pleader, who appears by waiving notice for the respondents.

3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

4. The petition makes only a limited prayer and therefore

this petition, in our view, can be allowed.

5. The writ petition is allowed. The respondent nos.1

and 2 are directed to decide the representations dated 06/03/2019

and 09/03/2021 moved by the petitioner, in accordance with law, if

already not decided, within a period of eight weeks from the date of

the order.

6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order

as to costs.

(ANIL S. KILOR, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.) Wadkar