Dismissed

M/S. Mak Pan Associates and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Dec 2011WP/10820/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a petition under Article 226 challenging a notification. The court held that the petitioners could not be entertained as they had withdrawn an earlier petition on the same subject without reserving liberty, thereby abandoning the remedy.

What did the court decide?

The petition is rejected/ dismissed as the petitioners have abandoned the remedy.

M/S. Mak Pan Associates and Ors. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

pvr １ wp10820-11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.10820 OF 2011

¶5

1.M/s.Mak Pan Associates & Ors....Petitioners

¶6

vs.

¶7

1.State of Maharashtra & Ors....Respondents

¶8

Mr.Korde, Sr.Advocate i/b. Mr.Madhusudan G.Gawde,
for Petitioners.

¶9

Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for Respondents 1 to 5.

¶10

Mr.V.P.Patil, for Respondent no.6.

¶11

CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.

¶12

DATED: 20th December,2011.

¶13

P.C.:-

¶14

1.Heard. Admittedly, the petitioners had

¶15

filed petition earlier under Article 226 of the

¶16

Constitution of India challenging the same
notification. That petition was withdrawn without

¶17

reserving any liberty. Therefore, in view of the

¶18

law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case

¶19

pvr ２ wp10820-11

¶20

�Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport

¶21

Appellate Tribunal, (1987)1 Supreme Court Cases
5�, as the petitioner has abandoned this remedy
for challenging the notification in the present

¶22

petition, the present petition cannot be
entertained. The learned Counsel submitted that
after he withdrew the petition, the owner of the

¶23

adjoining land who has also covered by the same
notification filed petition challenging that
notification and this Court entertained that
petition, and therefore, according to him, the
present petition can be entertained. In our
opinion, the submission is not well founded. So
far as the petitioners are concerned, they have

¶24

abandoned the remedy of filing petition under

¶25

Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging the notification which is challenged
in this petition, by withdrawing his earlier

¶26

petition. The learned Counsel submitted that the
notification is ab initio void. In our opinion,
even assuming that to be so, as the petitioners

¶27

pvr ３ wp10820-11 have abandoned their remedy, they cannot challenge the notification in a petition under Article 226 even if it is ab-initio void. The petition is, therefore, rejected.

¶28

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

M/S. Mak Pan Associates and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Mak Pan Associates and Ors. v. State 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ms. Aruna Shankar Wadekar

State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Shri. Dilip Jaisingh Saswant

Shri. Sunil Shripat Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Ramakant Krishna Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Koyana Dam Vikas Mandal Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Narayan Keshav Joshi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.