Remanded

Prakash Deolkar and 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 12 Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jun 2015WP/2170/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged Slum Tribunal orders condoning a 29-year delay without reasons or reviewing the Deputy Collector's reply. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's orders, revived the appeal and delay application, and directed the Tribunal to decide the matter expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; Appeal and Misc. Apn. revived; Tribunal directed to reject application for condonation of delay without reasons; Hearing fixed; Record transmitted.

Prakash Deolkar and 2 Ors. Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

WP 2170-10.doc

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2170 OF 2010

¶5

Prakash Deolkar & ors .Petitioners

¶6

 v/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & ors .Respondents

¶8

Mr.S.S.Redekar, Advocate, for the Petitioners
Mr.D.A.Nalawade, GP, for the Respondent No.1 –
State

¶9

CORAM:A.A.SAYED, J.
DATE :24.06.2015

¶10

P.C.

¶11

.The challenge in this petition is to an
order dated 13.08.2008 passed by the Slum
Tribunal, whereby the Appeal of the respondent
No.4 was allowed and the impugned slum area
declarationvidenotificationbearing
No.SAA/Malad/16 dated 15.10.1977, published in
Maharashtra Government Gazette dated 27.10.1977

¶12

was set aside in respect to the subject property
admeasuring 302.5 Sq.Meters. By way of

¶13

1 of 5

¶14

WP 2170-10.doc

¶15

amendment, the petitioners have also challenged
the order dated 12.04.2007 passed by the Slum
Tribunal condoning the delay in filing the
Appeal.

¶16

2.Pursuant to the order dated 25.03.2015

¶17

the record & proceedings in Appeal No.13 of 2007
filed before the Slum Tribunal was produced by
the learned Government Pleader before this
Court.

¶18

3.The grievance of the petitioners is
that despite the petitioners being shown in the

¶19

array of parties before the Slum Tribunal as the
respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 respectively, they were
not served with the Appeal papers. It is further
contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that despite the notification being
of the year 1977, the delay of about 29 years
was condoned by the Slum Tribunal merely by

¶20

2 of 5

¶21

WP 2170-10.doc

¶22

stating “Delay condoned subject to costs of
Rs.250/-”, without making any reference to the
reply filed by the Deputy Collector and without
recording or assigning any reasons.

¶23

4.Inasmuch as no reasons have been given
by the Slum Tribunal in condoning the inordinate
delay of 29 years and considering the fact that
the reply of the Deputy Collector also has not
been considered while condoning the delay, the
impugned order in my view cannot be sustained.
Having concluded that the impugned order
condoning the delay cannot be sustained, the
impugned order dated 13.08.2008 deciding the
Appeal finally would also have to go.

¶24

5.Considering the facts & circumstances,

¶25

in my view, the following order would meet the
ends of justice :

¶26

3 of 5

¶27

WP 2170-10.doc

¶28

(i)The impugned orders of the Slum

¶29

Tribunal are set aside. The Appeal as well as

¶30

the Misc.Appln.No.43 of 2006 seeking condonation
of delay shall stand revived;

¶31

(ii)The Slum Tribunal at the first instance

¶32

shall decide the delay condonation application;

¶33

(iii)The petitioner is permitted to appear
before the Slum Tribunal along with a copy of
this order on 20.07.2015 at 11.00 a.m. when
appropriate directions may be issued by the Slum
Tribunal;

¶34

(iv)The Slum Tribunal shall decide the

¶35

matter expeditiously;

¶36

(v)The record and proceedings shall be
transmitted forthwith to the Slum Tribunal;

¶37

(vi)The statement of the learned counsel

¶38

for the petitioner is recorded that a copy of
this order will be served upon the Advocate for
respondent No.4 within two weeks from today.

¶39

4 of 5

¶40

WP 2170-10.doc

¶41

6.The Petition is disposed of in the

¶42

aforesaid terms.

¶43

 (A.A.SAYED, J.)

¶44

5 of 5

Prakash Deolkar and 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 12 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Deolkar and 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 12 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

Prem Sunder Motiramani Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Bank of India Vs Yadav Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. through Mr. Prakash Yadav and Ors.

Pesi K. Sidhwa Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaikh Shabuddin Garibullah Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Mohd.Yusuf Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

The Head Master and Anr. Vs Ajit Ganpati Suryawanshi and 5 Ors.