Mariya Anjum Mohd Akil vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14000 Bom

 Judgment                                  1                            wp1192.19.odt




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


                          WRIT PETITION NO. 1192 OF 2019


 Mariya Anjum Mohd. Akil,
 aged about 20 years, Occu: Nil,
 R/o. Atarpura, Ward No.10,
 Darwha,Tq.Darwha,Distt. Yavatmal
                                                               .... PETITIONER.

                                     // VERSUS //

 1. The State of Maharashtra,
    through Principal Secretary,
    Urban Development Department,
    Mantralaya, Mumbai.

 2. The Commissioner and Director,
    Municipal Administration,
    Shaskiya Parivahan Seva Imarat,
    3rd Floor, Sir Pochkhanwala Road,
    Worli, Mumbai - 30.

 3. The Collector, Yavatmal.

 4. The Municipal Council, Darwha,
    Through Chief Officer, Darwha,
    Tq. Darwha, Distt. Yavatmal.
                                                      .... RESPONDENTS.
  ______________________________________________________________
 Shri Anand Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri D.P.Thakre, Addl. G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
 Shri Rahul Tajne, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
 ______________________________________________________________

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

                           DATED :    SEPTEMBER 28, 2021




  Judgment                                 2                              wp1192.19.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

1. Heard.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Considering the fact that a proposal for grant of approval to

appoint the petitioner and other 9 eligible persons on compassionate

basis, dated 08/03/2019 has been forwarded to respondent No.3 and it

is still pending with respondent No.3, we are of the view that the

purposes for this petition would be served if appropriate directions are

issued to the respondent No.2. Accordingly, we direct respondent No.3

to decide the proposal, dated 08/03/2019, wherein name of the

petitioner appears at Sr.No.9, in accordance with law and the

applicable Rules, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of eight

weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Rule accordingly. No costs.

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




 RRaut..