Disposed

Gopal Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Mar 2012WP/366/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was disposed of by directing the competent authority of the Corporation to decide the petitioner's representation regarding regularisation or action against a disputed structure within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to decide petitioner's representation on regularisation of structure within six weeks; status quo maintained for two weeks after decision.

Gopal Pamnani Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

WP/366-12

Mlns

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.366 OF 2012

¶7

Gopal Pamnani ...Petitioner
Vs

¶8

State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

Ms.Prachi Manekar, advocate, i/by
Mr.Avinash Belge, advocate, for petitioner.
Mr.D.S.Joshi, Intervenor.

¶10

Ms Geeta Joglekar, advocate, for respondent
no.2 to 4.

¶11

Ms.S.M.Dandekar, A.G.P, for respondent no.1.

¶12

CORAM :A.M.KHANWILKAR AND

¶13

N.M. JAMDAR JJ.

¶14

DATED :6th MARCH, 2012.

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

1.The principal grievance in this petition is

¶17

about non-consideration of representation made by the
petitioner in respect of structure in question by the

¶18

Corporation. In the circumstances, we deem it

¶19

appropriate to dispose of this petition with direction

¶20

to the respondents/competent authority of the

¶21

Corporation to decide the representation made by the

¶22

petitioner for regularisation of the structure in

¶23

question, if it is found that the same is

¶24

unauthorised. Competent authority shall decide all

¶25

questions in that behalf on its own merits in

¶26

Mlns 2 WP/366-12

¶27

accordance with law. That will have to be decided
expeditiously and in any case within six weeks from
the date of presentation of the representation. The
petitioner to file representation within two weeks
from today.

¶28

2.Needless to observe that the competent

¶29

authority shall give opportunity to all parties before
taking final decision on the said representation of
the petitioner in relation to the disputed structure.

¶30

3.Until the final decision is taken on the said
representation and copy of the decision served on the
petitioner, no precipitative action shall be taken in
respect of the disputed structure. The status-quo be
maintained by the parties with regard to the disputed
structure for a period of two weeks from the date of

¶31

communication of the decision of the competent
authority, in the event the decision is adverse to

¶32

the petitioner, so as to enable the petitioner to

¶33

challenge the decision before an appropriate forum.

¶34

(N.M.JAMDAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

Gopal Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Miss Jagdevi Gurunath Khedgikar Vs the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Pune Region

Palm Towers Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and Ors. Vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Dr. Sureshchandra R. Bhosale and Ors. Vs University of Pune and Ors.

Sou. Latadevi Jalinder Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Social Justice and Special Assistance and Ors.

Sonali Dinesh More Vs Dinesh Shakarnagth More

Mr. Rohitbhai M. Patel Vs the Commissioner, Vasai Virar City Corporation and Ors.