Disposed

Esskay Associates, through Partner, Sunil S. Kaushik v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Sept 2014WP/710/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court accepted a Tahsildar's apology for non-compliance, granted liberty for remedies against individuals in writ prayers, and directed authorities to decide pending applications expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Relief against individuals dismissed; apology accepted; directions to authorities to decide pending applications.

Esskay Associates, through Partner, Sunil S. Kaushik Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2014)

ash

wp-710.14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.710 OF 2014

¶5

Esskay Associates. .. Petitioner Vs State of Maharashtra and Others. .. Respondents

¶6

Shri Vedchetan Patil for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.

¶7

CORAM : A.S. OKA & G.S.KULKARNI, JJ DATED : 22ND SEPTEMBER 2014

¶8

P.C.

¶9

. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Perused the affidavit of Shri Arun Vitthal Kanoje, Tahsildar, Jawhar, District – Thane, who is personally present in the Court. He tenders an apology for not complying with the order passed earlier. He has stated the reasons as to why the order could not be complied with within the stipulated time fixed by this Court. A copy of the order passed by him on 9^th September 2014 is annexed to the affidavit which certifies the Mutation Entries 235 and 236. This order takes care of the first prayer.

¶10

As far as prayer clauses (b) to (d) are concerned, perhaps, considering the pendency of matter before the Tahsildar, the concerned authorities have not taken any action on the Applications of the Petitioner. As far as the prayer clauses (e) and (f) are concerned,

ash

wp-710.14

essentially a writ of mandamus has been sought against individuals. Such a relief cannot be granted in a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

Hence, we dispose of the Petition by passing the following

¶16

order.

¶17

ORDER :

¶18

(a) We accept the apology tendered by Shri Arun Vitthal Kanoje, Tahsildar, Jawhar, District – Thane;

¶19

(b) The order dated 9^th September 2014 passed by the Tahsildar takes care of the prayer clause (a);

¶20

(c) If Applications referred to in prayer clauses (b) to (d) are still pending, the concerned Authorities shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible;

¶21

(d) In so far as prayer clauses (e) and (f) are concerned, we grant liberty to the Petitioner to adopt appropriate remedies before the appropriate forum;

ash

wp-710.14

(e) All contentions of the parties in the pending Applications before the concerned Authorities are kept open;

¶26

(f) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶27

(G.S.KULKARNI, J) ( A.S. OKA, J )

Esskay Associates, through Partner, Sunil S. Kaushik v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Esskay Associates, through Partner, Sunil S. Kaushik v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept 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

Shri Narsinha Mahadeo Taklikar Vs the State of Mah'Tra and Ors.

Solapur Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner Vs Shri. Ajit Narsinha Taklikar and Ors.

Narsinha Mahadeo Taklikar (Since Decd) through Mr. Ajit N. Taklikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Navnath Madhukar Randive and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue Dept and Ors.

Shri. Uttamrao Krishna Desai and Ors. Vs Nivrutti v. Salunkhe

Shri. Navnath Madhukar Randive and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue Dept and Ors.