Bombay High Court

VIJAY RAMCHANDRA MANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECRETARY THR SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF RURAL WATER CON. AND ORS

Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: ACTING NANDESH SHANKARRAO DESHPANDE

Holding

The Court directs Respondents No.4 and 5 to decide the pending representation within 45 days by a reasoned order, thereby granting the relief sought.

Summary

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing Respondents No.4 and 5 to decide a representation dated 08‑06‑2026. The petitioner argued that the court should consider the prayer clause (ii) to compel the respondents to act. Respondents No.4 and 5 contended that the representation would be dealt with according to existing law. The Court examined whether it could issue a mandamus to enforce the decision of the pending representation. It held that the court could direct the respondents to apply the applicable law and decide the representation, and therefore disposed of the petition with a specific direction. The respondents were ordered to issue a reasoned decision within 45 days and communicate it to the petitioner, with a liberty to seek further remedy if aggrieved.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing Respondents No.4 and 5 to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 08‑06‑2026.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 226

Subjects

writ of mandamus
Article 226
representation
administrative law
direction

Judgment

                                                                910.WP-3053-2026.odt




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       WRIT PETITION NO.3053 OF 2026

Vijay Ramchandra Mane                        ….Petitioner
          Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.              ….Respondents
                                 ----
Mr. Datta Pawar a/w. Mr. Eshan Nayak and Ms. Sakshi Jankar for the
Petitioner.
Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for the Respondent, the State.
Mr. R.P. Kadam for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
                                 ----
                          CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ.
                                                  &
                                     NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.

                                DATE     : 10th JULY, 2026

P.C. :-

1.                 The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the

representation set out in prayer clause (ii) may be considered by

Respondent No.4 and 5. Prayer clause (ii) reads as under :

                (b) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ
                of mandamus or a writ, direction or order in the
                nature of the mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
                direction or order under Article 226 of the
                Constitution of India and thereby be pleased to direct
                the Respondents no.4 & 5 to decide representation
                dated 08.06.2026 filed by the Petitioner with the
                Respondent no.4 & 5.


2.                 The learned Advocate representing Respondent Nos.4 and 5

submits that the representation would be dealt with by the said

Authorities in the light of the law laid down by this Court.



Gauri Gaekwad                           1 of 2
                                                            910.WP-3053-2026.odt




3.              Considering the above, this Petition is disposed off with a

direction to Respondent Nos.4 and 5 to apply the law as is applicable, to

the pending representation of the Petitioner and decide the same by a

reasoned order, within 45 days from today. The decision shall be

communicated to the Petitioner. If the Petitioner is aggrieved, liberty to

avail of a remedy as is permissible in law.




(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)                    (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)




Gauri Gaekwad                        2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…