Pratiksha Dilip Meher v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Government Pleader And ORS

Digitally signed by SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN PATHAN Date:

2025.07.23 14:44:39 +0530 SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN PATHAN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7072 OF 2025 Pratiksha Dilip Meher ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

... Respondents Mr. Viral Rathod i/b Mr. Vishwatej Rajsinh Jadhav for the Petitioner Ms. Tanu N. Bhatia, A.G.P for the Respondents-State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

MONDAY, 21 st JULY 2025 P.C :

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is pressing only for relief as prayed in prayer clause (a) and not for any of the other reliefs sought in the petition. Prayer clause (a) reads as under:

"A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus ordering and directing the Respondent No.2 to decide the complaint/representation dated 16/8/2024, 12/8/2024 and 20/12/2024 of the Petitioner at earliest within 3 months." 1/3

Considering that this is the only relief now pressed, we do not deem it necessary to issue notice to the respondents at this stage.

Suffice it to state that, if any representation/complaint dated 16th August 2024, 12th August 2024 and 20th December 2024, has been made by the petitioner to respondent No.2, we deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to decide the said representation/complaint as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, within three months from the date of receipt of this order. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the petitioner's representations/complaints and as such, all contentions of all parties on merits are kept open. The said representations/complaints shall be decided on its own merits, in accordance with law.

2/3

Insofar as prayer clauses (b) and (c) are concerned, the petitioner has not pressed for those reliefs at this stage. We make it clear that we have not heard the petition with respect to the said prayer clauses and as such, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, in respect of prayer clauses (b) and (c), depending upon the outcome of the decision on the representations/complaints made to respondent No.2.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. 3/3