Disposed

Sachin Ramkisan Pardeshi v. the Chief Executive Officer - Pune Cantonement Board

Bombay HC9 Sept 2008WP/3578/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Division Bench directed the Cantonment Board to dispose of a pending appeal against a stop work notice within six months. It stayed the sealing order pending the appeal's decision and clarified that the authority is liable for violating the court's order if default occurs.

What did the court decide?

Directive to dispose of appeal within six months; stayed sealing order; cost order.

Sachin Ramkisan Pardeshi Vs the Chief… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

HVN

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO. 3578 OF 2008

¶5

 WITH

¶6

 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1482 OF 2008

¶7

 Sachin Ramkisan Pardeshi ... Petitioner
 Versus

¶8

 The Chief Executive Officer, Pune
 Cantonment Board. ... Respondent

¶9

 Mr. V.A. Shastry for the Petitioner.

¶10

 Mr. N.J. Presswala i/by M/s. Mulla & Mulla, C.B.
 & C. for Respondents.

¶11

 Mr. S.M. Pathak for applicant in C.A. No. 1482
 of 2008.

¶12

CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.&
A.P. DESHPANDE, J.
 DATED: 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2008
P.C.

¶13

 . We have heard the learned counsel for the
 parties.

¶14

 . The Petitioner had filed earlier Writ Petition
 before this court and by order dated 27.3.2008 the
 Division Bench has directed the competent authority
 to dispose of the appeal within the period of six
 months. The said appeal is against the order passed
 by the Respondent while issuing the order for stop
 work notice. Despite of the order of this court,
 the same has not been disposed of till date. The
 period of six months is coming to an end by 26th
 September, 2008. As such, some time is still

¶15

 remaining as on today.

¶16

 . We make it clear that the appellate authority

¶17

 which is stated to be the Director of Cantonment

¶18

 Board shall dispose of the appeal in accordance with

¶19

 law before the date fixed by the order of the
 Division Bench. We make it further clear that in
 the event of default, the said authority shall be
 liable to be proceeded in accordance with law for

¶20

 violating the order passed by the High Court.

¶21

 . It is not in dispute that the property of the
 Petitioner has been sealed and/or resealed as on
 today. The said order would continue for the period
 of two weeks and within which time, the appellate
 authority shall decide the appeal. Needless to
 notice that the order of sealing and/or resealing
 would ultimately depend upon the order which may be
 passed by the Appellate authority. At this stage,
 we are not commenting upon any other aspect. All
 the pleas taken by the Petitioner shall be kept open
 and the Petitioner would be entitled to challenge
 the order passed by the appellate authority, if it
 is adverse, in accordance with law by raising all
 the grounds that has been taken up in the present
 writ petition. Writ Petition disposed of. There
 shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

 . The Civil Application does not survive. Liberty
 to take steps according to law.

¶23

 . All parties to act on the copy of this order
 authenticated by the Court Associate.

¶24

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶25

A.P. DESHPANDE, J.

Sachin Ramkisan Pardeshi v. the Chief Executive Officer - Pune Cantonement Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Ramkisan Pardeshi v. the Chief Executive Officer - Pune Cantonement Board

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

Maharashtra Rajya Surksha Rakshak Sanghatana Vs the Security Guard Board and Anr.

Shri Ramadhar Parshuram Rastogi Vs Smt.Chhaya Sunil Wagh and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dattatraya Shankar Keni (Lrs) 1 Ramubai Dattatraya Keni and Othrs

National Disabled Organisation Vs Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial) and Ors.

Shantaram Chahu Tokade and Ors. Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer - Metro Centre NO.1, Panvel and Anr.

M/S. La'Builde Corporation Vs Union of India and Anr.