Shahid M. Khan v. The State Of Goa Thr Its Chief Secretary And 3 ORS

Meena

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO.758 OF 2023 SHAHID M. KHAN

...Petitioner

VS THE STATE OF GOA THR ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND 3 ORS

...Respondents

Mr. Nikhil Pai and Ms. Neha Kholkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr Devidas Pangam, Advocate General with Ms. Maria Correia, Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

CORAM:

M.S. SONAK & BHARAT P. DESHPANDE,JJ.

DATE:

8th NOVEMBER,2023 P.C.:

1.

Heard Mr. Nikhil Pai who appear along with Ms. Neha Kholkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr Devidas Pangam, learned Advocate General with Ms. Maria Correia, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

2.

Learned Advocate General fairly states that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before issuing the impugned memorandum dated 05/09/2023 and, therefore, the same stands withdrawn.

3.

Te learned Advocate General however points out that the petitioner has not made any detailed representation as was contemplated by our judgment and order dated 25/04/2023 in Writ Petition No.835 of 2015. Mr Pai points out that the representation was made on 02/09/2023, though, the same may not be a detailed one. He now states that the petitioner will make a fresh representation or urges that this petition itself may be treated as a petitioner's representation. 4.

Learned Advocate General states that the 2nd respondent would now treat this petition as petitioner's representation and dispose of the same within 30days after hearing the same. Tis statement is accepted and the 2nd respondent is directed to act accordingly. 5.

Te 2nd respondent must inform the petitioner, the date of the hearing. Te petitioner must attend the hearing on the appointed date and time without seeking any adjournments.

6.

In our judgment and order dated 25/04/2023 while disposing of Writ Petition No.835 of 2015, we had directed the 2nd respondent to consider the observations in the said judgment and order while disposing of the petitioner's representation. Tis direction is now reiterated because we find that the impugned memorandum dated 05/09/2023, which, now stands withdrawn, is nothing but reiteration of the memorandum dated 01/09/2015, which was set aside by this Court, in its judgment dated 25/04/2023 in Writ Petition No. 835 of 2015. Further, we direct that in case the 2nd respondent once again decides to reject the petitioner's

representation, such decision should not be enforced for a period of at least two weeks from the date of its communication to the petitioner. 7.

Tis petition is disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs.

8.

All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. BHARAT P. DESHPANDE,J.

M. S. SONAK, J.

MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Date: 2023.11.09 15:14:58 +05'30'

MEENA VISHAL BHOIR