Dismissed

Sopan Tukaram Kabadi and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, through Princpal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dpet and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jun 2013WP/2299/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged a 1989 land allotment order. The court noted a prior 1989 writ petition on the same order was dismissed 12 years ago. Finding the delay without explanation constitutes an abuse of process, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as an abuse of process of law due to undue delay and inaction after a prior dismissal.

Sopan Tukaram Kabadi and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through… — Election Law | Bombay HC (2013)

Deshmane

34.wp.2299-13.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2299 OF 2013

¶6

Sopan Tukaram Kabadi and Ors. ..Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents

¶9

Mr. R.S. Deshpande, i/b. Mr. M.B. Gawade, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 6.

¶10

CORAM : A.S. OKA, AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 13^th JUNE, 2013

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Perusal of the prayer clauses (A) to (D) which are substantive prayers made in the petition show that the petitioners are challenging the order passed in May, 1989 by which their lands were allotted to respondent No.7.

¶13

In paragraph–3 of the Petition, there is a specific averment that there was earlier Writ Petition filed by the petitioners challenging the very order passed in May, 1989. It is pointed out that in the said earlier Writ Petition, interim relief was granted. In paragraph–12 of the Petition, it is pointed out that the Writ Petition was dismissed on the technical grounds.

¶14

A copy of the earlier Writ Petition and the judgment in

1 / 2

34.wp.2299-13.doc

the said Writ Petition have not been annexed. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners tendered across the bar a copy of the judgment and order dated 23^rd March, 2001 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1182 of 1989.

¶19

The averments made in the present Petition show that the said Writ Petition of 1989 was filed for challenging the same order of May, 1989 which is challenged in this Petition. Though the earlier Petition was dismissed more than 12 years back by a detailed judgment, the petitioners have not taken any steps. Therefore, filing of the present Petition in the year 2013 for challenging the same order is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Hence the petitioners cannot be allowed to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶21

(A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

¶22

2 / 2

Sopan Tukaram Kabadi and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, through Princpal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dpet and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sopan Tukaram Kabadi and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, through Princpal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dpet and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Vidyadhar Chougule Vs Sangli Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner

M/S. Devi Construction Company, through Partner, Mr. Vinod K. Baney Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shri. Ahmed Ibrahim Parwani Vs the Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Prakash Narayan Tingre and Ors. Vs Union of India, through the Ministry of Defence, through Advocate for the Union of India and Ors.

Yosef Dhondiba Mohite and Ors. Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer No.Ii

Prashant Narayan Phadtare Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer NO.22, Pune and Ors.