Disposed

Shankar Parvati Phadtare v. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Jan 2015WP/76/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP 76 of 2015, the High Court of Bombay Civil was constituted to decide a petition seeking to keep pending a case about an appeal filed under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, which was not heard due to unavailability of the Appellate Authority. The court disposed of the petition by issuing directions for the hearing of the appeal and the application for stay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to appear before the appellate authority on 12/01/2015 and the authority to decide the stay application within two weeks.

Shankar Parvati Phadtare Vs Kalyan Dombivali… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 wp76-15

¶2

sas

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.76 OF 2015

¶6

Shankar Parvati Phadtare

¶7

..Petitioner.

¶8

V/s.

¶9

Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation & Ors.

¶10

..Respondents.

¶11

Mr.Suresh M. Sabrad for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.A.S.Rao for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶13

Mr.V.S.Gokhale, A.G.P. for respondent No.6.

¶14

CORAM : A.S.OKA AND

¶15

A.K. MENON, JJ.

¶16

DATED : 6TH JANUARY, 2015

¶17

P.C. :-

¶18

Not on board. Taken on board.

¶19

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶20

and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent No.6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 26^th December, 2014, the petitioner had kept an appeal under section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning

¶21

2 wp76-15

¶22

Act, 1966 ready which filed and accepted on the same day. The case of the petition is that that the appeal was not heard as the Appellate Authority was not available. Learned A.G.P. has no instructions on this aspect. Considering the limited controversy, the petition need not be kept pending and the same is disposed of by passing following order:-

¶23

(i) We direct the petitioner to appear before the appellate authority on Monday, 12^th January, 2015 at 2.30 p.m. The petitioner shall produce an authenticated copy of this order;

¶24

(ii) The appellate authority shall decide the application for stay within a period of two weeks from 12^th January, 2015;

¶25

(iii) The order passed on the application be immediately communicated to the petitioner;

¶26

(iv) Till the date of communication of the order passed on the application for interim relief, the interim protection granted to the petitioner under order dated 18^th December, 2014 in Writ Petition No.11437 of 2014 shall continue to operate. If the order passed on the application be adverse to the petitioner, the protection granted to the petitioner will continue to operate for a

¶27

3 wp76-15

¶28

period of two weeks from the date of service of the communication to the petitioner;

¶29

(v) We make it clear that the prayer for interim relief shall be decided without being influenced by the grant of limited protection by this Court;

¶30

(vi) All contentions of the parties are kept open;

¶31

(vii) The petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶32

(A.K.MENON, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.)

Shankar Parvati Phadtare v. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Parvati Phadtare v. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation 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

Mr. Jayant Lunawat and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kashinath Gajanan Mhatre and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Housing Dept and Ors.

Shri. Laxman Krishna Pande Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Shri Karsandas Mulji Thakkar and Ors.

M/S. Vijay Country Bar Cl-Iii and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mrs. Banubi Mushtaq Surme, through Poa, Mr. Wasim Abdul Rahim Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Urban Development and Anr.