Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

VIJAY RAMCHANDRA MANE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECRETARY, RURAL AND WATER CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT AND ORS

Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The Court disposed of the petition, directing Respondents No.4 and No.5 to decide the pending representations within 45 days by applying the applicable law and issuing a reasoned order.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing Respondents No.4 and No.5 to decide pending representations filed by the petitioners. The petitioners argued that the authorities had failed to act on their representations and requested the court to intervene. The respondents contended that the representations would be dealt with in accordance with the law laid down by the court. The bench examined whether the High Court could issue a mandamus directing administrative authorities to decide pending representations. It held that the petition could be disposed of by directing the respondents to apply the applicable law and decide the representations within a specified time. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition, ordering Respondents No.4 and No.5 to issue reasoned orders within 45 days and informing the petitioners of the decision.

Issues considered

  • Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing administrative authorities to decide pending representations under Article 226.

Subjects

  • writ of mandamus
  • Article 226
  • representation
  • administrative law
  • High Court
  • direction

Judgment

                                                                911.WP-3054-2026.odt




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

                       WRIT PETITION NO.3054 OF 2026

Vijay Ramchandra Mane & Ors.                 ….Petitioners
          Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.              ….Respondents
                                  ----
Mr. Datta Pawar a/w. Mr. Eshan Nayak and Ms. Sakshi Jankar for the
Petitioners.
Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, 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 Petitioners submits that the

representations set out in prayer clause (b) may be considered by

Respondent No.4 and 5. Prayer clause (b) 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 to decide representations filed
                by the Petitioners no.1 & 2 and the Respondent no.5
                to decide representations of Petitioners no.3 & 4.


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

submits that the representations would be dealt with by the said

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



Gauri Gaekwad                           1 of 2
                                                            911.WP-3054-2026.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 representations of the Petitioners and decide the same by a

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

communicated to the Petitioners. If the Petitioners are 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

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.