Honey Machines Pvt.Ltd. and Ors. Vs State Government of Maharashtra and Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO. 3514 OF 2007

¶4

 Honey Machines Pvt. Ltd.,

¶5

 & Ors. .... .. Petitioners.

¶6

vs.

¶7

 The State Government of

¶8

 Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents.

¶9

 Ms. Kiran Bagalia with Ms. Kirti Kokil

¶10

 for Petitioners.

¶11

 Mr. V.Z. Kankaria i/by A.S. Pratinidhi

¶12

 for respondent no. 4.

¶13

 Ms. J.S. Pawar,Addl. G.P., for R. Nos. 1 & 2.

¶14

CORAM: J.N. PATEL &

¶15

 A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶16

 DATE: 9TH AUGUST 2007.

¶17

 P.C.

¶18

 . Heard.

¶19

 2. The petitioners have approached this Court
 seeking quashing of the order dated 19.1.2007 passed by
 the respondent Collector whereby he has ordered stay to

¶20

¶21

 the N.A. permission granted to the petitioners on
 12.12.2006 and has further sought the relief against
 the order passed by the Municipal Corporation on
 3.2.2007 requiring the petitioners to stop further
 construction and during the pendency of the petition
 the petitioners should be allowed to carry out
 construction in accordance with the plans and
 commencement certificate dated 5.10.2006 issued by the
 Pune Municipal Corporation.

¶22

 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the
 parties and gone through the record. It was contended
 on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners
 that the Collector has no power to review its own order
 and once having granted N.A. permission he could not
 have stayed the same thereby affecting the project of
 the petitioners. It is submitted that in absence of
 any such power vested in the Collector the order
 deserves to be quashed and set aside. On the other
 hand, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing
 for respondent no. 4 that the order passed by the
 Collector granting N.A. permission to the petitioners
 adversely affects the interest of respondent no. 4 and
 after seeking necessary information they have informed
 the Collector and objected to having granted the N.A.
 permission for construction to the petitioners as per
 the plan sanctioned by the Pune Municipal Corporation
 in respect of land bearing Survey No. 18/6 Old (18/10
 new) situated at Mouje Bavdhan,Taluka Mulshi, District

¶23

 3
 Pune.

¶24

 4. The subject matter of the dispute is the D.P.
 Road which, according to the petitioners, is in
 accordance with the regional town plan approved by the
 State Government. It is not disputed that after the
 State Government had approved the regional town plan,
 the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation were extended
 so as to cover the survey number of the petitioners
 where they propose to carry out development and use the
 land for non-agricultural purposes. It is also not
 disputed that the approved plan prepared by the Pune
 Municipal Corporation is pending with the State
 Government for approval.

¶25

 5. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts
 and circumstances, we find nothing wrong on the part of
 the Collector in passing the impugned order. The
 Collector has filed an affidavit in response to the
 writ of this Court and has clearly stated that he would
 hear the parties in the matter and then pass
 appropriate orders. We do not think that such power
 does not vest in the Collector and it will not be
 proper for us to intervene in the matter in exercise of
 our writ jurisdiction. We, therefore, dismiss the
 petition.

¶26

 6. The Collector in his affidavit in reply has
 also stated that he will pass appropriate orders after

¶27

¶28

 hearing the parties as expeditiously as possible. We
 expect that the Collector shall take up the matter for
 hearing after giving notice to all concerned parties
 and proceed to pass necessary orders as expeditiously
 as possible and preferably within three months from the
 date of communication of this order. The counsel for
 the petitioners to communicate this order to the
 Collector.

¶29

 (J.N. Patel, J. )

¶30

 (A.A. Sayed, J. )

Honey Machines Pvt.Ltd. and Ors. v. State Government of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Honey Machines Pvt.Ltd. and Ors. v. State Government of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Revachand Talreja Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Priyanka Enterprises Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh Dattaram Bagul Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. Vs Prakash Jay Shetty

Keru Tatoba Shejul Vs Tukaram Biru Devkate and Ors.

Protochem Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs Official Liquidator of M/S. Glass Carboys and Pressed Wares Ltd. (in Liqn) and 2 Ors.