Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Mr. Devendra Ramesh Limaye, filed a writ petition seeking a licence to operate as a licensed surveyor for insurance companies. In an earlier order dated 12 December 2018 in Writ Petition No.13784 of 2018, the court had directed the Petitioner to make a representation to Respondent No.2 (the concerned authority) within four weeks, and Respondent No.2 was to pass suitable orders within eight weeks. The Petitioner made the representation within the stipulated time, but Respondent No.2 did not dispose of it. Consequently, the Petitioner filed the present petition (Writ Petition No.2480 of 2021) complaining of non-compliance. On 24 October 2024, the court issued notice to Respondent No.2, warning of serious action if it failed to appear. On 5 December 2024, Respondent No.2's counsel produced a compilation of documents, including a communication dated 8 July 2019, which indicated that the Petitioner's representation had been disposed of, though it was unclear whether the Petitioner had received it. The court, rather than delving into the issue of service, disposed of the petition, granting the Petitioner liberty to challenge the communication dated 8 July 2019. All contentions on merits were left open. The court held that the limited grievance of non-compliance stood suitably redressed.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Non-compliance with Court Directions - Disposal of Representation - The Petitioner sought licence as a licensed surveyor; Respondent No.2 failed to dispose of his representation despite court order dated 12 December 2018 directing disposal within eight weeks. The court noted that Respondent No.2 had disposed of the representation by communication dated 8 July 2019, albeit after delay. The court disposed of the petition granting liberty to the Petitioner to challenge the said communication. Held that the grievance of non-compliance stood redressed (Paras 2-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Respondent No.2 had disposed of Petitioner's representation in compliance with the court's order dated 12 December 2018.
Final Decision
The petition is disposed of granting the Petitioner liberty to challenge the communication dated 8 July 2019 by which Respondent No.2 disposed of Petitioner's representation. All contentions of all parties on merits are left open.
Law Points
- Non-compliance with court directions
- disposal of representation
- liberty to challenge administrative order
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (12) 55
Writ Petition No.2480 of 2021
M. S. Sonak, Jitendra Jain
Ms. Vishaka Shelar, Mr. Suryajeet Chavan, Mr. Tejas Hilage for Petitioner; Ms. Komal Shah, Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Mr. Shrinivas Bhave for Respondent No.1; Mr. Sunny Shah, Mr. Ashish Suryavanshi for Respondent No.2; Mr. Amol Kanaki, Mr. Umesh Mankapure for Respondent No.4
Mr. Devendra Ramesh Limaye
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India, New Delhi Through Chairman & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking compliance with court order directing disposal of representation for licence as licensed surveyor.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought direction to Respondent No.2 to dispose of his representation in compliance with court order dated 12 December 2018.
Filing Reason
Respondent No.2 failed to dispose of Petitioner's representation despite court order dated 12 December 2018.
Previous Decisions
Order dated 12 December 2018 in Writ Petition No.13784 of 2018 directed Petitioner to make representation within four weeks and Respondent No.2 to pass suitable orders within eight weeks.
Issues
Whether Respondent No.2 had disposed of Petitioner's representation in compliance with the court's order dated 12 December 2018.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner submitted that Respondent No.2 had not disposed of his representation despite the court order.
Respondent No.2 submitted that the representation was disposed of by communication dated 8 July 2019 and produced documents showing dispatch via courier.
Ratio Decidendi
When a representation is disposed of after delay, the court may treat the grievance of non-compliance as redressed and grant liberty to challenge the disposal order on merits.
Judgment Excerpts
The grievance in this petition is that Respondent No.2, despite our order dated 12 December 2018, had not disposed of Petitioner’s representation.
Rather than going into the issue of service, we dispose of this petition by granting the Petitioner liberty to challenge the communication dated 8 July 2019.
All contentions of all parties on merits are left open.
Procedural History
On 12 December 2018, in Writ Petition No.13784 of 2018, the court directed Petitioner to make representation within four weeks and Respondent No.2 to dispose of it within eight weeks. Petitioner made representation but Respondent No.2 did not dispose of it. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2480 of 2021. On 24 October 2024, court issued notice to Respondent No.2. On 5 December 2024, after hearing, court disposed of petition granting liberty to challenge communication dated 8 July 2019.
