Chandrakala B Yadav v. State Of Maharashtra And 6 ORS

22-WP-588-2020.doc Shailaja

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.588 OF 2020 Chandrakala B. Yadav ] Petitioner Vs.

State of Maharashtra and others. ] Respondents .....

Mr. Shivaji A. Masal, for Petitioner.

Mr. Hemant Haryan, A.G.P, for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Akshay Shinde, for Respondent No.2.

Mr. R.Y. Sirsikar, for Respondent No.4-MCGM.

.....

CORAM : K.K. TATED & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.

DATE : 10th AUGUST, 2021.

P.C.

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

During the course of arguments, Mr. Masal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that their main prayer in the petition is prayer clause (a) i.e to direct respondent No.2-MHADA to decide the petitioner'

s application-representation dated 9th September, 2019 (Exhibit DDD, page 203 of the petition) as early as possible, but, in any case, within 15 days from the date of the order.

SHAILAJA SHRIKANT HALKUDE SHAILAJA SHRIKANT HALKUDE Date: 2021.08.11 13:02:28 +0530

22-WP-588-2020.doc 3.

Mr. Shinde, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-MHADA submits that he received instructions from his client that they are ready to decide the petitioner' s application-representation dated 9th September, 2019 as early as possible, but, in any case, within four weeks from today. The statement is accepted.

4.

In view of these facts, following order is passed; : O R D E R :

(a)Respondent No.2-MHADA is directed to decide the petitioner'

s application-representation dated 9th September, 2019 (Exhibit DDD, Page 203 of the petition) as early as possible, but, in any case, on or before 15th September, 2021 and communicate the decision to the petitioner in writing.

(b)All contentions of the parties are kept open. (c) Writ Petition stands disposed of with these directions.

(d)No order as to costs.

[PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.] [K. K. TATED, J.]