Bombay High Court
SANJAY PATANGEversusMINISTER OF CO-OPERATION AND TEXTILE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that it will not issue any direction to the respondents and disposed of the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Patange, filed a writ petition seeking the High Court to call for records and set aside an order dated 10‑02‑2025 relating to Revision Application No. 54 of 2024, and to direct the Minister of Co‑operation and Textile and the Joint Divisional Registrar to issue notices in the pending revision proceedings. The petitioner later clarified that he does not require a final adjudication of the revision applications, but merely wants the authorities to issue notices. The Court observed that it is not appropriate to exercise its writ jurisdiction to compel the issuance of notices where the competent authorities are already empowered to decide the revision applications. It noted that the authorities should take cognizance and act, and therefore declined to issue any direction. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed without granting any relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can, under its writ jurisdiction, direct the Minister and the Joint Divisional Registrar to issue notices in pending revision applications.
- Whether the petition seeking quash of the order dated 10‑02‑2025 and call for records is maintainable.
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- revision application
- administrative law
- notice
- high court discretion
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
NISHA
NISHA SANDEEP 10-wp.12374.2026.doc
SANDEEP CHITNIS
CHITNIS Date:
2026.09.28 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
14:00:56
+0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.12374 OF 2026
Sanjay Patange ...Petitioner
Versus
Minister of Co-operation and Textile and Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Aditya Lele with Mr. Atul Mishra and Mr. Rutuparn Deo for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Karan S. Thorat, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C. :
1. The petition seek the following reliefs:-
“9. .... ....
a. That, This Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow the Present
Petition;
b. That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the Records
and Proceedings of the Revision Application no. 54 of
2024 filed before the Respondent no. 01 and upon
adjudicating the Records, quash and set aside the
impugned order dated 10.02.2025.”
N. S. Chitnis 1/3
10-wp.12374.2026.doc
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that
he would not insist upon the final adjudication of the Revision
Applications, but expects, at least, that notices be issued by the said
authorities, i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 2, in the respective Revision
Applications filed before them.
3. By invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, we are not
expected to exercise our writ jurisdiction for this purpose, as we are
not conscious of the pendency of the proceedings before the Hon’ble
Minister as well as the Joint Divisional Registrar. We can, however,
observe that if proceedings are filed before them, being the Competent
Authorities, either as Appellate Authorities or otherwise, we expect the
authorities to take cognizance thereof and take appropriate steps, so
that a person like the petitioner is not required to approach this Court
praying that the authority should at least issue notice.
If respondent Nos.1 and 2 are vested with the power to
decide the Revision Applications, they are expected to take appropriate
steps for adjudicating the Revision Applications, which automatically
N. S. Chitnis 2/3
10-wp.12374.2026.doc
would commence with the issuance of notice. Since we do not intend
to issue any direction at this stage, we hope and trust that the learned
Government Advocate shall bring this order to the notice of
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
N. S. Chitnis 3/3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.