Bombay High Court

PRAKASH SURATGIR GIRIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court directs the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s representations and decide them within four weeks, thereby disposing of the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioner, Prakash Suratgir Giri, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the second respondent to decide his representations dated 9 February 2015 and 24 February 2015 concerning alleged illegal construction on Plot No. 1 by the third respondent. The Court limited the petition to this specific prayer and ordered that the second respondent, the concerned authority, must consider the representations and, if necessary, take appropriate action. The Court emphasized that the authority retains discretion to act if it deems further steps required. The petition was disposed of with a directive that the representations be decided within four weeks from the date of the order. No substantive discussion on merits was required beyond the procedural direction.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court should direct the second respondent to consider and decide the petitioner’s representations regarding alleged illegal construction

Subjects

writ petition
illegal construction
representation
direction
high court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41959-DB

                                               1                    WP / 7745 / 2015



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            902 WRIT PETITION NO. 7745 OF 2015
                                PRAKASH SURATGIR GIRI
                                       VERSUS
                          STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                                   ...
                               Advocate for petitioner :Mr. S.B. Bhapkar
                           Addl.GP for the respondent – State : Mr. P.S. Patil
                          Advocate for respondent no. 2 : Mr. Hanmant V. Patil
                                                   ...

                          CORAM               : KISHORE C. SANT AND
                                                JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.

                          DATE                : 10 SEPTEMBER 2026

              PER COURT :

                          Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned

              advocate for the respondent.


              2.          Vide order dated 24.08.2016, the petitioner had restricted

              the petition only to the extent of prayer clause (D). Prayer clause (D) is

              for direction to respondent no. 2 to decide the representations dated

              09.02.2015 and 24.02.2015 and, thereafter, take necessary steps

              about the so-called illegal construction over the plot no. 1 done by

              respondent no. 3.


              3.          Considering above, this Court finds it appropriate to

              dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondent no. 2 –

              authority to consider representations filed by the petitioner dated
                                  2                  WP / 7745 / 2015


09.02.2015 and 24.04.2015. It is needless to say that if the authorities

feel that action is necessary, it is open for the authorities to proceed

further.


4.            Writ petition is disposed of.


5.            The representations be decided within four weeks from

today.




         [ JITENDRA JAIN ]                    [ KISHORE C. SANT ]
              JUDGE                                 JUDGE

arp/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…