← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/14574/2024disposed off

Subhash Balaram Bhagat And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

2025-05-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal Jain , Hon'Ble Shri Justice M.S. Sonak2 pages

Digitally signed by SAYYED SAEED ALI AHMED ALI Date:

2025.05.09 15:20:20 +0530 SAYYED SAEED ALI AHMED ALI 22.WP.14574.24.DOCX Revati

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.14574 OF 2024 Subhash Balaram Bhagat and Ors.

... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

... Respondents ______________________________________________________ Mr Suresh Kamble , for Petitioner.

Mr J D Deo, for Respondent No.3 and 4.

Ms Savina Crasto, AGP for the State.

______________________________________________________ CORAM : M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.

DATED : 9 May 2025 PC:- 1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

The Petitioner seeks benefit under 12.5 % scheme of CIDCO.

3.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner pointed out that repeated representations have not been attended to and therefore, the Petitioner is forced to institute this Petition. He points out that even the Government has directed the CIDCO to look into the Petitioner's representation and decide the same.

4.

Mr. Deo learned counsel for the CIDCO pointed out that there are no details in the representation dated 12 October 2009 annexed to this Petition. From the application/

22.WP.14574.24.DOCX representation, it would be extremely difficult to decide the matter. Accordingly, he suggest that the Petitioner may be directed to make fresh representation with all details and particulars so that the same could be disposed of by Respondent No.3 and 4 expeditiously.

5.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that a fresh representation would now be made within 4 weeks giving full particulars of details. Upon receipt of such fresh representation, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to consider and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and in any event before 30 August 2025. This means that by 30 August 2025 the reasoned decision must be communicated to the Petitioner.

6.

If the Petitioner is aggrieved, the Petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to cost.

7.

All concerned to act upon the authenticated copy of this order.

(Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)