Pramod Namdeo Sonawane v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
2025:BHC-AUG:32225-DB
IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 913 WRIT PETITION NO. 13517 OF 2025 Pramod Namdeo Sonawane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others ...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. V. D. Sapkal i/b Mr. S. R. Sapkal And P.l. Kale AGP for Respondents-State: Mr. D. R. Korde ...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
Dated : November 21, 2025.
PER COURT :- 1.
Heard.
2.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he had applied for renewal of his licence for the year 2025-2026. The learned AGP submits that the application was filed on 21/02/2025 and that the application will be decided by 20/02/2026. The applicant ought to have been decided by now, and there is substantial delay in decision-making. 3.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that if his application is decided on 20/02/2026, no effective period would remain for him to run his business on account of renewal period being over. He, therefore, states that the petitioner will also file a fresh application for renewal for the year 20262027. The said fresh application will be filed on or before 06/12/2025. He requests that both applications be decided together, as deciding only the first application at this stage would serve no meaningful purpose. 4.
Having heard the learned AGP, it is directed that the authority concerned shall decide the petitioner's pending renewal application for 2025Page 1 of
913 WP 13517-2025 2026, as well as the fresh application for 2026-2027 that will be filed on or before 06/12/2025 to be decided on or before 21/02/2026. 5.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that certain complaints were made against the petitioner and were raised before the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. In response, the Government stated on the floor of the House that all such complaints were decided in favour of the petitioner and that the allegations were found to be false. If such a statement has been made by the concerned MLA in the Assembly, the petitioner is at liberty to place all relevant material before the authority while his applications are being considered.
6.
With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. ( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ) vj gawade/-.
Page 2 of