Laltaprasad Bagal Gupta v. The State Of Maharashtra And 5 ORS

wp.1357.18.47.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1357 OF 2018 Laltaprasad Bagal Gupta

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...Respondents

Mr. J. M. D'Silva for the Petitioner Mr. Abhay Patki, A.G.P for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 3-State Ms. Raveena Yadav I/b Ashok Purohit & Co. for the Respondent No. 4 CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

THURSDAY, 10 th JANUARY 2019 P.C. :

Heard Advocate Mr. D'Silva for petitioner. Learned A.P.P appears for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Advocate Ms. Yadav appears for respondent No. 4. Nobody for respondent Nos. 2, 5 and 6. Counsel appearing for respondents inform that impugned order is passed by respondent No. 2. Nobody appears for respondent No. 2. According to petitioner, impugned order shows total nonapplication of mind. He submits that when grievance is in relation to property at Jogeshwari, respondent No. 2 has called for a report in SQ Pathan 1/2

wp.1357.18.47.doc relation to a scheme located at Worli Division at Abdul Gaffar Khan Road, Worli.

He also states that appropriate application pointing out this apparent error has been moved before respondent No. 2, but it has not been looked into.

In this situation, as respondent No. 2 has chosen not to appear, we find that interest of justice can be met with, by directing respondent No. 2 to look into application moved by petitioner for correction within two weeks after the communication of this order to it.

Learned counsel submits that main application preferred by petitioner is also pending since long. Respondent No. 2 can also attempt to dispose of that application expeditiously. With this direction, we dispose of the petition. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

SQ Pathan 2/2