Ramesh Tukaram Tanpure v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3066 OF 2019 Ramesh Tukaram Tanpure Age : 65 yrs. Occu. Agri., R/o Manori, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar.

... Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department Maharashtra State,Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.

2.

The Collector, Ahmednagar.

3.

The Tahsildar, Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar.

4.

The superintendent of Police Dist. Ahmednagar.

5.

The Police Station Officer, Rahuri Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar.

... Respondents ....

Mr. Suresh P. Salgar, Advocate for Petitioner; Ms. R.P. Gaur, A.G.P. for all Respondents.

....

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND S.M. GAVHANE, JJ DATED : 04th MARCH, 2019

PER COURT:- 1.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2.

The Petition is taken for final disposal at admission stage. Notice to respondent Nos. 1 to 4, returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of notice for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. 3.

A limited grievance is raised in the petition on the backdrop of the order passed by the competent authority namely; Tahsildar, Rahuri. It may not be necessary for us to refer as the facts in detail. Suffice to say that the petitioner had approached the competent authority Tahsildar. The Tahsildar accordingly pass the order protecting the interest of the petitioner in his order refer to visit to the spot. The petitioner in view of the order of the Tahsildar, submitted an application to the Tahsildar for providing the police protection to him. The Tahsildar, Rahuri on 13.02.2019 informed the petitioner that the appropriate and competent authority is the Superintendent of Police to take decision on the aspect to provide police protection. The petitioner, accordingly, approached the Superintendent of Police on 12.02.

2019 by filing of application. A copy of the application is placed on record at Exhibit 'F'. The Petitioner expressed his grievance to bare the necessary amount for the police protection as per the Government rules.

12.02.2019, the application is kept pending without there being any decision on the application, and the petitioner apprehends a serious financial loss if the order is not passed as the ready sugar cane crop if did not transport to the factory before the crushing season is over. The order passed by the Tahsildar in favour of the Petitioner would be only an order on paper and would be an ineffective order. This bing the limited grievance raised by the petitioner.

4.

The petition is disposed of with direction to Respondent No.4 - Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar to take an appropriate decision on the application dated 12.02.2019. Needless to state that on the merits of the application, as early as possible, and not later that (1) one week from the date of this order.

5.

Authenticated copy of order be issued to the petitioner. Learned AGP also to communicate this order to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

( S.M. GAVHANE ) (PRASANNA B. VARALE) JUDGE JUDGE Sudhir Rane