Quashed

Nivrutti Govind Chavan and Anr. v. the Collector, Kolhapur

Bombay HC2 Apr 2014WP/3095/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay heard a writ petition. Respondents opposed hairline waiver of time but consented to quashing a commissioner's order. The Court quashed the impugned order, remanded the matter for fresh consideration, fixed a hearing schedule, and extended ad-interim relief.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order dated 12June 2003, remanded matter for fresh consideration, and continued ad-interim relief.

Nivrutti Govind Chavan and Anr. Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

wp3095

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3095 OF 2012

¶5

Nivrutti Govind Chavan & Anr.
vs.

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

Collector of Kolhapur & Ors....Respondents

¶8

Mr.P.D.Dalvi for the Petitioners
Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for the respondent nos.1 to 5.
Mr.S.S.Patwardhan i/b Mr.Chetan Patil for respondent
Nos.6 and 7.

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.A.SAYED, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 2, 2014

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and
7. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and
7 on instructions of the said respondents who are
present in the Court states that the said
respondents have no objection for setting aside the
impugned order dated 12th June 2003 passed by the
Divisional Commissioner,Pune Division, Pune with a
direction to the Divisional Commissioner to hear the
petitioners and the respondent Nos.6 and 7 and to
pass a fresh order. Without prejudice to the rights
and contentions of the respondent Nos.6 and 7, the
learned counsel for the said respondents states that
if a time bound schedule is fixed, the said
respondents have no objection for continuation of
adinterim relief granted earlier till the disposal
of the matter by the Divisional Commissioner.

¶12

wp3095

¶13

¶14

2In view of the aforesaid statements, we need
not keep the petition pending and the same is
disposed of by passing the following order:

¶15

(I) Impugned order dated 12^th June 2003 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune (ExhibitD to the petition) is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune for fresh consideration;

¶16

(II) We direct the petitioners and respondent Nos.6 and 7 to appear before the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune on 7^th May 2014 at 11.00 a.m for fixing the schedule of hearing;

¶17

(III) After hearing the petitioners and the respondent Nos.6 and 7 and all concerned parties, a fresh order shall be passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, as expeditiously as possible and within a period of two months from 7^th May 2014;

¶18

(IV) Adinterim relief granted by this Court on 3^rd April 2012 will continue to operate till the date of passing the order by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune;

¶19

(V) The order passed by the Divisional Commissioner,Pune Division, Pune shall be communicated to the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.6 and 7;

¶20

(VI) In the event, the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune be

¶21

3 wp3095

¶22

adverse to the petitioners, adinterim relief
granted earlier will continue to operate for a
period of four weeks from the date on which the
communication of the order is served to the
petitioners or one of them;

¶23

(VII)We make it clear that all the contentions
of the parties on relevant issues are kept open
tobedecidedbytheDivisional
Commissioner,Pune. The Divisional Commissioner
shall decide the matter without being
influenced by the continuation of adinterim
relief by this Court;

¶24

(VIII)Parties and the Divisional Commissioner,
Pune Division, Pune to act upon an
authenticated copy of this order;

¶25

(A.A.SAYED,J.)

Nivrutti Govind Chavan and Anr. v. the Collector, Kolhapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nivrutti Govind Chavan and Anr. v. the Collector, Kolhapur

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

Niyojit Jivhala Grih Nirman Sanstha Maryadit Vs State of Maharashtra, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Shri. Datta Majur Sahkari Sanstha Ltd. through Chairman Shri. Raghunath Shripati Patil Vs the Chief Secretary and Ors.

Villagge Panchayat of Village Ramwadi Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Arjun Laxman Kadam and Anr. Vs the Tehsildar, Patan and Ors.

Vasudeo Appa Lad and Ors. Vs the Collector and Land Acqusition Officer and Ors.

M/S. S.M.C. - G.E.C.P.L. (J.v.) and Anr. Vs the Commissioner, Solapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.