Bombay High Court
TUKARAM KISAN THITEversusTHE MINISTER (REVENUE)
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- M S KARNIKS M MODAK
Holding
The petition is disposed of, with the Court directing the Revenue Minister to decide the revision application expeditiously and to consider the stay application within four weeks.
Summary
The petitioner, Tukaram Kisan Thite, filed a writ petition challenging the delay in hearing a revision application and a stay application filed before the Revenue Minister after an order of the Additional Commissioner, Pune. The petitioner alleged that neither the stay application had been decided nor notices issued, and sought expeditious hearing. The respondents, the Revenue Minister, contended that a heavy workload prevented timely consideration. The Court, without addressing the merits, directed the Revenue Minister to decide the pending revision application as soon as possible and to rule on the stay application within four weeks of the order. All contentions were kept open and the petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the Revenue Minister should decide the revision application filed in 2025 within a reasonable time
- Whether the stay application seeking interim relief should be entertained and decided within a specified period
Subjects
- revision application
- stay order
- interim relief
- administrative delay
- high court
- writ petition
- procedural direction
Judgment
904-wp 3973-26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3973 OF 2026
Tukaram Kisan Thite … Petitioner
Versus
The Minister (Revenue) & Anr. ... Respondents
__________________________
Ms. Shital P. Tanpure for the Petitioner.
Ms. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for the Respondent-State.
__________________________
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATED : 2nd APRIL, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Being aggrieved by the Order passed by the learned Additional
Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune dated 19th May, 2025, the Revision
Application was preferred by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Revenue
Minister on 24th July, 2025. It is submitted that since then neither the
application for stay has been decided nor the notices have been issued.
Learned counsel therefore requested that the Revision Application may be
heard expeditiously.
3. We have heard learned AGP. Learned AGP submitted that there is
heavy workload before the Hon’ble Revenue Minister and therefore it is not
Amk 1/2
904-wp 3973-26.doc
possible to hear the Revision Application of the year 2025 within a time
bound schedule and notices are yet to be issued.
4. Considering the Revision Application was filed in the year 2025, we
request the Hon’ble Revenue Minister to decide the Revision Application as
expeditiously as possible. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that an application for stay of the Order passed by the learned Additional
Commissioner has been preferred before the Hon’ble Revenue Minister. If
such an application has been preferred, we request the Hon’ble Revenue
Minister to consider the application for stay for grant or otherwise
appropriate ad-interim/interim relief within a period of four weeks from
the date of communication of this order.
5. It is made clear that we have not made any observations on merits of
the respective contentions.
6. All contentions are kept open.
7. The petition is disposed of.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Amk 2/2
Checking your session…