Dismissed

Subodh Solanki v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Oct 2016WP/1424/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the State Government's decision to take over university land for a public road. The court held that restoration of status quo ante was inappropriate as the road was already constructed and used by the public, and the university had been compensated.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for restoration of status quo ante was not granted; petition disposed of; rule discharged.

Subodh Solanki Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

oswp1424

ssp

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

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.1424 OF 2005

¶6

Subodh Solanki
vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra
and others

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Ms Devyani Kulkarni i/b Mihir Desai for the
Petitioner

¶11

Mr.L.T.Satalkar, AGP for the respondent Nos.1,3 and
5

¶12

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.A.SAYED, JJ.

¶13

 DATE : OCTOBER 15, 2016

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER A.S.OKA,J.)

¶15

1Called out for final hearing. The challenge in
this petition is to the decision of the State
Government dated 13th February 2004 of taking over a
of land out of the campus of Mumbai University at
Kalina for construction of a public road. The said
order records that for compensating the Mumbai
University, additional land will be placed in
possession of the University as recorded in the said
order.

¶16

2The learned counsel for the petitioner stated
that during the pendency of the petition, public
road has been already constructed which is being
used by the members of the public.

¶17

3As the public road has been constructed which

¶18

2 oswp1424

¶19

is already being used by the members of the public
for considerably long time, it will not be
appropriate at this stage to grant prayers made in
this PIL and direct restoration of status quo ante.
Restoration of status-quo ante will be against the
public interest. Moreover, the impugned order
itself records that the Mumbai University has been
compensated by allotting a privately owned land.

¶20

4Therefore, it is not necessary to entertain
this petition. The same is disposed of. Rule is
discharged with no order as to costs.

Subodh Solanki v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subodh Solanki v. State of Maharashtra and 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

Mr. Nadir Khan Nashir Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and 8 Ors.

A.K.Singh and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shekhar Shetty Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Fulsing Shankar Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh @ Ganpat Ramkrishna Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amod Arvind Gandhi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.