BALDEV KRISHNAN ASHTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner had filed a Writ Petition being W.P.No.5880 of 2018 against Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, (the Corporation "for short") joined in this application as respondent Nos. 1 to 4 seeking a writ of mandamus directing concerned officials of the Corporation to send their reply to the notice sent by the petitioner to the Corporation under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "CPC"). Petitioner entertained a belief that the reply was mandatory and absent the reply, he would be disabled to institute a suit against the Corporation for some contractual claim that he had against the Corporation. The Writ Petition was, however, dismissed by this Court by an order passed on 11.09.2018. This Court recorded briefly the reasons for dismissal of the petition. By this application, review of order dated 11.09.2018 has been sought by the petitioner.

(2.) As we can see from the grounds taken in the application the petitioner does not seem to be satisfied with reasons recorded for dismissal of the petition. It further appears that the petitioner is desirous of knowing in details the reasons for dismissal of the petition. It also appears that the petitioner is of the view that this Court dismissed the petition while completely ignoring the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union of India, reported in 2005 (6) SCC 344, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is better, in the interest of good administration and a good litigation policy that whenever the law requires, notice for filing of suit or other proceeding be issued to the State Government or the State or the statutory authorities and whenever such notice is issued, it is to be responded to by the concerned State or Government or statutory authority by sending a proper reply.

(3.) The review petitioner, who appears in person, submits that his expectation from the Corporation is very modest. He submits that he expects nothing more from the Corporation than its reply to him to the notice sent by him to the Corporation under Section 80 of the C.P.C. He submits that Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. vs. Union of India cited supra, squarely applies to the facts of the present matter and, therefore, it is mandatory for the Corporation to have sent its reply to his Section 80 CPC notice.