The High Court set aside orders rejecting an application for development permission because the authority failed to record proper reasons. The court directed the authority to reconsider the application within two months.
The impugned order was set aside. The Petitioner was directed to reconsider the application within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ash
wp-6273.11
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6273 OF 2011
| M/s | . Konark Enterprises, | ) |
|---|---|---|
| Thr | ough its Partners : | ) |
| 1. | Shri Anandkumar Vedprakash Agarwal & | ) |
| 2. | Shri Alok Kelashchandra Agarwal. | ).. Petitioners |
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Others. ).. Respondents
Shri R.D. Soni along with Mrs. Meena Sharma i/by M/s. Ram & Co for the Petitioners.
Shri V.S.Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri A.M. Kulkarni for Respondent Nos.3 to 5.
Shri J.H. Oak i/by Shri A.A. Garge for Respondent No.6.
CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S.GADKARI, JJ DATED : 5TH DECEMBER 2014
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER A.S.OKA, J)
. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, the learned AGP for the first and second Respondents, the learned counsel appearing for the third to fifth Respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the sixth Respondents.
ash
2
wp-6273.11
ash 3 wp-6273.11
“The land under reference is not acquired and not in possession of Corporation, therefore, CIDCO being New Town Development Authority has constraints to grant the development permission as per provision laid down under Section-113A, 117 read with 125 & 127 of the MR&TP Act-1966.”
4 wp-6273.11
ash
for the first time recorded the reasons for rejection of the Application by the third Respondent, the Applicant did not get a fair opportunity to deal with the said reasons. When the law provides for a statutory appeal against the order rejecting the Application for development permission, it was the duty of the third Respondent to assign proper reasons in brief for rejection of the Application so that the Appellate Authority has the benefit of considering the said reasons. In fact, after the finding that the only reason recorded by the CIDCO was incorrect, the Appellate Authority ought to have directed the third Respondent to reconsider the Application on merits.
order:
ORDER :
ash
wp-6273.11
5
(c) Appropriate decision shall be taken by the third Respondent on the said Application as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of two months from today;
(d) All the contentions of the parties on merits are kept open;
(f) There will be no orders as to costs.
(A.S.GADKARI, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the development permission application by CIDCO was based on recorded reasons.
Whether the Appellate Authority was authorised to record reasons not recorded by the original authority.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Konark Enterprises
State of Maharashtra
City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.
A.S. Oka
A.S. Gadkari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
