Disposed

Shri. Sartaz Mohammed Sheikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jun 2013WP/3545/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ petition regarding eviction from government premises. Court accepted petitioner's undertaking to vacate by a specified date pending compliance, disposing of petition conditionally.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to withdraw temporarily on undertaking to vacate premises and deposit rent, subject to filing specific undertaking and payment.

Shri. Sartaz Mohammed Sheikh Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp-3545.13.doc

¶2

ppn 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3545 OF 2013

¶5

Sarataz Mohammed Shaikh .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr.V.V. Pai for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Irfan Sarataz Shaikh-Son of the Petitioner present. Ms. A.D. Vhatkar, AGP for Respondent No.1.

¶8

CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 18 JUNE 2013

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

. On 8 May 2013, the following order came to be passed :-

¶11

“. On 10 April 2013, the statement of the Petitioner that the Petitioner is not in arrears of any compensation and the Petitioner is regularly paying compensation as per the rules, was recorded. The matter was adjourned to next date to enable the learned AGP to take instructions. In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, it was directed that the Petitioner will not be evicted from the premises till the next date. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time at the request of the AGP, Today also the Officer instructing the learned AGP is not in a position to confirm whether the Petitioner is in arrears. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that he has receipts to show that the payment of compensation have been made from time to time.

¶12

2. In view of the position that no clear statement is coming forth from the State, the Court is constrained to adjourn the Petition to 12 June 2013 and continue the interim protection.

¶13

wp-3545.13.doc

¶14

ppn 2

¶15

3. It is expected that by the next date, the State Authorities will give necessary instruction to the learned AGP, keeping in mind the scarcity of government accommodation and the Petitioner continues to occupy the premises meant to be allotted to a Government Servant even after his retirement.”

¶16

Thereafter on 12 June 2013, the following order came to be passed :-

¶17

“. Heard learned AGP for the Respondent-State. None appears on behalf of the Petitioner. Learned AGP states that though it is correct that the Petitioner is not in arrears and is paying compensation, since the Petitioner has retired from services two and half years back, he cannot continue to occupy the premises. In the impugned order dated 13 March 2013, two directions were issued. Firstly to vacate the premises and secondly to pay arrears. As far as arrears are concerned, it is informed that the petitioner is not in arrears. However, the second part of the order regarding vacating the premises still needs to be implemented.

¶18

2. There is hardly any justification in the petitioners continuation to reside in the premises which are Government quarters for two and half years after retirement, and the payment of compensation cannot be a reason. The petitioner must vacate the premises at the earliest. However, since the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not present today, stand over to 14 June 2013 at 3 p.m.

¶19

3. It is made clear that if none appears on behalf of the petitioners on the adjourned date, The Court will proceed to pass such orders as may be required in the interest of justice. ”

¶20

The learned Counsel, on instructions, states that the Petitioner will vacate the premises by 21 October 2013. The statement is accepted on the condition that no further time will be

¶21

ppn 3 wp-3545.13.doc

¶22

granted to the Petitioner. This condition is explained by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to the son of the Petitioner who is present in the Court, and he accepts the same.

¶23

A written undertaking to the above mentioned effect that the Petitioner will vacate the premises in his possession by 21 October 2013 and no further extension will be sought, will be filed within a period of two weeks from today. The undertaking will also specify the members of the family currently residing with the Petitioner and that the adult members of the family of the Petitioner will abide by the above mentioned undertakings. The Petitioner will also deposit rent/ compensation of the above mentioned premises which will be payable till 21 October 2013 within a period of four weeks from today. If the directions given above, as regards the undertaking and payment of rent/compensation are not complied within the stipulated period, the order of eviction will become implementable forthwith.

¶24

Writ Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

¶25

N.M. JAMDAR, J.

Shri. Sartaz Mohammed Sheikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sartaz Mohammed Sheikh v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Dattaram Vinayak Mahale Vs Mrs. Priti Prashant Mahale and Ors.

Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr. Vs M/S. K. S. Hirlekar and R. K. Hirlekar and Anr.

Pandharinath Bhikaji Joshi (Since Decd) through Heir Shri. Nandakumar Pandharinath Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra, through Revenue and Forest Dept Vs Narshinha Saraswati Swami Dattadev Sansthan, through Shri. Pandurang D. Pujari and Ors.

Mr. Lalmohamad Nawasali Khan Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

M/S. Solitaire Residency Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, through Chairman, Haakim Singh Tyagi Vs M/S. Solitaire Builders, through Prop., Dr. Rajkumar Choithramani and Ors.