Writ petition challenging an order not granting stay. Court held hearing fixed before Revenue Tribunal and disposed petition while keeping earlier interim order operational.
Petition disposed. Interim order dated 9th March 2012 to remain operational during appeal pendency.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
SNS
1 wp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2208 OF 2012
Shri Jalaluddin Khan M. Nasir & Ors. v/s.
...Petitioners.
The State & Ors.
.....Respondents.
Mr. Vaibhav Sadgure a/w Ms S.T.Shaikh with Mr. Zaid Ansari i/by S.K.Srivastav & Co. for the petitioners.
Mr. Patne, AGP for the State.
Mr. .Joshi for the R.No.3.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J.
DATED : April 10 , 2012.
P.C.:
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2 Petitioners by filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 7.3.2012 passed by the President, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai below stay application in Appeal No.116/A/2012. By said order, the learned President issued notice of the stay application to the respondent. Applicant is aggrieved as no stay was granted by the learned President, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai to the order impugned in the appeal.
3 This Court by an order dated 9th March, 2012 passed in aforesaid writ petition protected the petitioners interest by granting interim relief in
SNS
2 wp
terms of prayer clause (b), which reads thus:
“ That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition, the operation and implementation of the order dated 25/10/2011 passed by the Additional Collector on Application filed by the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 be stayed.”
4 Both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents states that the hearing of the appeal no.116/A/2012 is fixed before the learned President, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai on 12th April, 2012. In these circumstances, in my view, no purpose will be served in keeping the petition pending in this Court. However, the Petitioners’ interest will be required to be protected during the pendency of the appeal in the light of interim order passed in the aforesaid petition. Petition accordingly is disposed off by passing the following order:
(i) Order passed by this Court on 9th March, 2012 in the above writ petition shall remain in operation during the pendency and final disposal of the Appeal No.116/A/2012 pending before the learned President, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai.
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
SNS 3 wp
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Jalaluddin Khan M. Nasir & Ors.
The State & Ors.
RANJIT MORE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
