← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/4367/2017disposed off

Shri. Ranjitsinh Krushnrao Patil And ANR. v. Divisional Joint Registrar And ORS.

2017-04-20Hon'Ble Shri Justice Rajesh G. Ketkar2 pages

1/2 WP.4367-17.doc [Ranjitsinh v DJR]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4367 OF 2017 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders.

Mr.Amit Borkar, Advocate for Petitioners.

Ms.Vaishali Nimbalkar, A.G.P.

for Respondents No.1 and 3.

Mr.Harshad Shingnapurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J.

DATE : 20/04/2017 P.C.:

1.

Not on board. At the request of Ms.Nimbalkar taken up in the production board.

2.

Heard Mr.Amit Borkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Vaishali Nimbalkar, learned A.G.P. for respondents No.1 and 3 and Mr.Harshad Shingnapurkar, learned Counsel for respondent No.2. 3.

Ms. Nimbalkar has tendered a photo-copy of the communication dated 19.4.2017 addressed by the Desk Officer, Co-operation, Marketing and Textile Department of the Government of Maharashtra to her. Same is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. In this communication it is set out that the hearing of the revision application is over and

2/2 WP.4367-17.doc [Ranjitsinh v DJR] decision will be rendered within 15 days from today. 4.

Mr. Borkar submitted that the Revision Application was heard by the earlier Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation and not by the present Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation. In view thereof, liberty was reserved to Ms. Nimbalkar to clarify this position. Ms. Nimbalkar has tendered a photo-copy of the Rozanama dated 28.9.2016 which recorded that the arguments were concluded and the order was reserved. The same is taken on record and marked 'Y' for identification. Ms. Nimbalkar also tendered a true copy of the judgment and order dated 20.4.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation, Marketing and Textile by which the Revision Application preferred by the petitioners is dismissed. Same is taken on record and marked 'Z' for identification. In view thereof, the prayers made in the Petition cannot be granted and the Petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 20.4.2017, if so advised. Order accordingly.

(R. G. KETKAR, J.) Deshmane(PS)