Bombay High Court

ROHIT RAJU SURYAWANSHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

Since the Collector had already taken cognizance of the petitioner's complaint, the High Court held that no order was required and disposed of the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioner, Rohit Raju Suryawanshi, filed a writ petition challenging a grievance against the State of Maharashtra. He alleged that the Collector had not addressed his complaint, prompting the petition. The State argued that the Collector had already appointed a committee to investigate the grievance. The Court observed that the administrative authority had taken cognizance of the complaint and therefore found no ground to intervene. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, expressing hope that the complaint would be decided expeditiously.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when the concerned administrative authority has already taken cognizance of the grievance.

Subjects

writ petition
administrative law
complaint grievance
jurisdiction
disposal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39681-DB


                                                   {1}                  34-wp-10736-2026

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                     34 WRIT PETITION NO. 10736 OF 2026

                                     Rohit Raju Suryawanshi
                                              VERSUS
                               The State Of Maharashtra And Others
                                                 ...
              Mr. K.B. Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner
              Ms. Neha Kamble, AGP for State
                                               .......

                                          CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                                   ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.


                                             DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2026
              PER COURT :

              1.       Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, in view of

              complaint made by the Petitioner, the Collector has appointed the

              Committee to look into the grievance of the Petitioner.

              2.       Since the       Collector has already taken cognizance of the

              complaint of the Petitioner, we see no reason to pass any order in the

              Writ Petition.

              3.       The Writ Petition is therefore disposed of.

              4.       We hope and trust that complaint of the Petitioner will be finally

              decided expeditiously.



              (ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)                   (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
              Bhagyawant Punde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…