Dismissed

Mohd. Rafique Mohd. Siddique v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC1 Oct 2014RPW/59/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of a review petition by dismissing it, holding no case was made out as the documents relied upon were already considered and not disclosed earlier. The court also refused to extend interim relief, citing the petitioner's lack of candour after holding an unauthorized structure unlawfully for eight years.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed; no order as to costs; interim relief not extended further.

Mohd. Rafique Mohd. Siddique Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

skc

¶2

11-RPWL-71-14

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 71 of 2014 IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 597 OF 2007

¶7

Mohammad Rafique Mohd. Siddique .. Applicant/ Orig. Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. A. R. Shaikh for Mr. S. A. Shaikh for Applicant / Original Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. H. S. Venegaonkar – Additional Government Pleader for State – Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.

¶11

DATE: 01 October 2014

¶12

P.C . :-

¶13

1] This petition seeks review of the judgment and order dated 13 August 2014 passed in writ petition no. 597 of 2007.

¶14

2] The review is sought for primarily on the ground that true scope and import of the following documents has not been taken into consideration:

¶15

(I) Order dated 23 May 2000 made by the Additional District Collector, Mumbai;

¶16

(II) Order dated 24 November 2006 made by the District Collector

1/4

skc

11-RPWL-71-14

and Competent Authority, Mumbai; and

¶21

(III) Registration Certificate under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act dated 14 September 1978.

¶22

3] Mr. Shaikh, learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the aforesaid three documents clearly establish the structure in question is a legal and authorised structure. Mr. Shaikh further submits that the findings recorded by the two Authorities and thereafter confirmed by this Court in that the petitioner was attempting to pass of the aforesaid documents, which in fact pertain to some other structure as if pertaining to the suit structure, is an erroneous finding and has occasioned serious miscarriage of justice.

¶23

4] Having considered the aforesaid submissions, in my judgment, no case whatsoever has been made out for seeking a review. The aforesaid documents in question have been duly considered not merely by the two fact finding authorities but also this Court. There was no reference made to the aforesaid documents in response to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 14 September 2006. At this stage, the petitioner proceeded on the basis that the show cause notice pertains to only

2/4

skc

11-RPWL-71-14

two structures. It is only at a later stage that the petitioner came up with a case that even the third structure which forms the subject matter of the petition was a legal structure in terms of the aforesaid orders. The scope and import of the documents has been duly considered by the fact finding authorities and there was absolutely no perversity in such consideration.

¶28

5] In paragraph 17 of the judgment of which the petitioner seeks review, it has been noted that the petitioner by setting up a false case managed to hold on to the third unauthorised structure for at least eight long years.

¶29

6] In such circumstances, no case is made out to exercise any powers of review. The review petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in this review petition.

¶30

7] At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for further continuation of interim relief. Despite coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has set up a false case and managed to hold on to the third unauthorised structure for almost eight years, interim relief had been extended by a period of eight weeks,

3/4

skc

11-RPWL-71-14

because the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner intends to seek a recourse against the judgment and order dated 13 August 2014. As the period for which interim relief was granted was about to expire, the present review petition was moved for hearing. The petitioner has been far from candid with the Court. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to extend the interim relief, any further.

¶35

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶36

Chandka

¶37

4/4

Mohd. Rafique Mohd. Siddique v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Rafique Mohd. Siddique v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 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

Shivneri Shikshan Sanstha Tere Vayangani and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Education and Sports and Ors.

Shri Rasaidevi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Education and Sports and Ors.

Shivneri Shikshan Sanstha Tere Vayangani and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Education and Sports and Ors.

Shri Bhairidev Bramhadev Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaik Sanstha Maryadit, Shipur Tarf Nesari Vs Proposed Bhairidevi Mahila Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaik Sanstha Maryadit, Shipur Tarf Nesari and Ors.

Shri Bhairidev Bramhadev Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaik Sanstha Maryadit, Shipur Tarf Nesari Vs Proposed Bhairidevi Mahila Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaik Sanstha Maryadit, Shipur Tarf Nesari and Ors.

Shri Ashok Krishna Chavan, and 2 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.