Bombay High Court
SURESH NARSING HUGGE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the petitions must be disposed because the petitioners failed to make a prior representation to the competent authority.
Summary
The petitioners filed several writ petitions seeking the benefits of the ACPs scheme, alleging that the State had not granted them such benefits. The State, through the Additional Government Pleader, contended that the petitioners had not first made any representation to the competent authorities and had directly approached the High Court. The Court examined whether a writ petition could be entertained when the aggrieved parties have not exhausted the statutory remedy of making a representation. It held that the petitioners must first approach the appropriate authority and that the court could not entertain the relief otherwise. Consequently, the Court disposed of all the writ petitions, directing the petitioners to file applications with the authorities, which must be decided within eight weeks. No substantive merits of the ACPs scheme were adjudicated.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition seeking benefits under the ACPs scheme can be entertained when the petitioners have not first made a representation to the appropriate authority
Subjects
- ACPs scheme
- writ petition
- administrative law
- jurisdiction
- representation requirement
- relief
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:44612-DB
1 WP / 2884 / 2020 +
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
46 WRIT PETITION NO. 2884 OF 2020
LIMBAJI RAMA RATHOD AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AND
49 WRIT PETITION NO. 3022 OF 2021
SURESH NARSING HUGGE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AND
52 WRIT PETITION NO. 9190 OF 2021
GOKUL WAMANRAO RATHOD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AND
55 WRIT PETITION NO. 13427 OF 2021
KESHAV KASHINATH NAGRE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for petitioners : Mr. D.S. Kudle (in all WPs)
Addl.GP for the respondent – State : Mr. P.S. Patil
...
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 28 SEPTEMBER 2026
PER COURT :
The petitioners are seeking benefits of ACPs scheme,
however, learned AGP vehemently opposes the Petitions by submitting
2 WP / 2884 / 2020 +
that petitioners have not made any representation/s to the authorities
seeking benefits under the ACPs and have directly approached this
Court.
2. By keeping the rights of the petitioner/s open to approach
the appropriate authority, the petitions are disposed of.
3. If any application/s / representation/s is / are made to the
authorities, the authorities to consider in accordance with law within a
period of eight (8) weeks from the date of making such application/s.
[ JITENDRA JAIN ] [ KISHORE C. SANT ]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
Checking your session…