Mahadev Ganpati Devkar vs The Chief Executive Officer Cidco And ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 5135 Bom

Bombay High Court

Mahadev Ganpati Devkar vs The Chief Executive Officer Cidco And ... on 15 May, 2026

                                                                   Digitally signed
                                                                   by PALLAVI
                                                                   MAHENDRA
                                                        PALLAVI
2026:BHC-AS:22568-DB                                    MAHENDRA
                                                                   WARGAONKAR
                                                        WARGAONKAR Date:
                                                                   2026.05.15
                                                                   20:33:20
                                                                   +0530
                                                                                                                 15-WP-6588-2026.doc




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                            CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6588 of 2026
                         Mahadev Ganpati Devkar                                                               ...Petitioner.
                                 Versus
                         The Chief Executive Officer
                         CIDCO & Ors.                                                                         ...Respondents.
                                                                               __________
                         Mr Sanjiv Sawant, Advocate a/w Mr Heramb Kadam, and Mr Malhar
                         Bageshwar for the Petitioner.
                         MR VG Badgujar, AGP for the State.
                         Mr Priyansh Jain i/by Mr Sagar Shetty for Respondent No.1.
                                                                               __________

                                                                 CORAM : ADVAIT M. SETHNA &
                                                                         SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

                                                                 DATE                 :   15 MAY 2026.
                                                                                          (VACATION COURT)
                         P.C.:

1. Issue Notice. Mr Priyansh Jain waives service of notice on behalf of

Respondent No.1.

2. Rule. With the consent of the parties, heard forthwith.

3. The limited relief that the Petitioner is seeking is the decision of his

representation dated 22.4.2026 made to the Chief Administrative Officer,

Maharashtra Water Resources, CIDCO Bhavan, CIDCO, Belapur,

Mumbai. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that the said representation is

15-WP-6588-2026.doc

not decided since 22.04.2026 and the Petitioner is due for retirement.

4. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, at the very outset,

would point out that the said Authority to whom the representation is

made is an independent Authority and according to him, on instructions,

is not the competent Authority to decide such representation.

5. Having this being pointed out, Mr Sawant, the learned Counsel

appearing on behalf of the Petitioner would insist that the representation

be decided by the said authority i.e. the Chief Administrative Officer,

Maharashtra Water Resources, CIDCO Bhavan, CIDCO, Belapur,

Mumbai.

6. Considering the above, as the prayer only relates to the decision of

the representation made to the said Authority, it would be just and

expedient to direct the said Authority to decide the representation of the

Petitioner dated 22.04.2026, as expeditiously as possible, preferably

within a period of two weeks from making of the same, to the said

Authority. The said representation will be decided on its own merits and

in accordance with the law.

7. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion either on

the merits nor on the preliminary issues/objections raised by the learned

Counsel for the Respondent, which will be appropriately decided by the

said Authority.

8. With the above observations, the Petition stands worked out and is

15-WP-6588-2026.doc

accordingly disposed of.

9. All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

[SANDESH D. PATIL, J] [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]