Bombay High Court

MANOJ SADASHIV CHOUDHARYversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SANDIPKUMAR C MORE ABASAHEB D SHINDE

Holding

The Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Beed, to decide the petitioner's representation dated 12 January 2026, if it had been received, and disposed of the petition.

Summary

Manoj Sadashiv Choudhary filed a criminal writ petition seeking a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Beed, to decide a representation dated 12 January 2026. The petitioner argued that his earlier representation on the same matter had been rejected by the Court on its merits. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor highlighted that the current representation was filed subsequently and that there was no acknowledgment of its receipt by the respondent. The Court noted the procedural lapse but deemed it appropriate to order the Superintendent to decide the representation if it had been received. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondent to consider the representation, if received, and disposed of the petition.

Issues considered

What procedural authority does the High Court have to direct a police superintendent to decide a pending representation?

Subjects

criminal writ petition
representation
police superintendent
procedural direction
High Court order

Judgment

                                  (1)
                                                923- Cri. W. P. 167-2026.odt
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

          923 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 167 OF 2026

                  MANOJ SADASHIV CHOUDHARY
                                VERSUS
           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                      ...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shashikant E Shekade
APP for Respondent/State: Mr. P. S. Patil
                                  ...

                   CORAM :      SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

                   DATED :    FEBRUARY 27, 2026

ORDER:-

1.    Heard.



2.    The petitioner is seeking direction to respondent No.4. i.e.

Superintendent of Police, Beed to decide the representation dated

12.01.2026.



3.    The learned A.P.P. by pointing out earlier order submits that, the

earlier representation of the petitioner filed for same purpose is

already been rejected by this Court on merit.



4.    However,     present   representation     appears    to   be    filed

subsequently.    The learned A.P.P. also pointed out that there is no

acknowledgment of the receipt of the said application by respondent
                                   (2)
                                                923- Cri. W. P. 167-2026.odt
No.4. However, we deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.4 to

decide the representation of the petitioner dated 12.01.2026, if

received by him.



5.     With these direction, we dispose of the petition.



(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE)                     (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
      JUDGE                                    JUDGE



YSK/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…