Disposed

Sunil Darekar, Proprietor Gargi Outdoor Advertising v. Union of India, through the Ministry of Defense and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Jun 2016WP/1549/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order directing vacation of defence land. The clerk of respondent counsel undertook that the impugned notice was withdrawn and eviction would follow per law. Accepting this, the court disposed of the petition without examining merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by accepting the undertaking that the impugned notice was withdrawn.

Sunil Darekar, Proprietor Gargi Outdoor Advertising Vs… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

908-WPL.1353.2016.doc

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1353 OF 2016

¶4

Sunil Darekar, Proprietor } Gargi Outdoor Advertising } Petitioner versus Union of India and Ors. } Respondents

¶5

Mr. Saket Mone with Mr. Vishesh Kalra and Mr. Sabit Chakrabarti i/b. M/s. Vidhi Partners.

¶6

Mr. Bharat H. Mehta for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶7

CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ. DATED :- JUNE 23, 2016

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

The impugned order directs the petitioner to vacate a land styled as defence land within a period of 15 days from the date of its publication. That is dated 8^th April, 2016. Apprehending such eviction, this petition was filed and by an adinterim order, the petitioner's hoarding/advertisement displayed thereon has been protected. The ad-interim order passed on 12^th May, 2015 is thus continued. On the last occasion, Mr. Mehta sought time to take instructions from the Ministry officials, particularly as to whether they would go ahead with the action in terms of the impugned order or otherwise.

¶10

Page 1 of 2

¶11

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶12

908-WPL.1353.2016.doc

¶13

Today, when the matter is called out Mr.Mehta, on instructions, states that the impugned notice/order dated 8^th April, 2016 stands withdrawn and the authorities would now take further steps in accordance with law in order to secure the eviction/vacation of the petitioner's hoarding/advertisement displayed thereon. In view of this statement made, all apprehensions of the petitioner have been taken care of. The Statement made by Mr. Mehta is accepted as an undertaking given to this court. In view thereof, nothing survives in the writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of by clarifying that the court has not examined either the ambit and scope of the legal provision or the merits of the rival contentions. We reserve liberty to the respondents to take steps in accordance with law.

¶14

(DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶15

Page 2 of 2

¶16

J.V.Salunke,PA

Sunil Darekar, Proprietor Gargi Outdoor Advertising v. Union of India, through the Ministry of Defense and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Darekar, Proprietor Gargi Outdoor Advertising v. Union of India, through the Ministry of Defense and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Durgaprasad Bhanu Majumdar Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Mr. Vijayprakash Deepnarayan Pandey and Anr. Vs Janseva Sahakari Bank (Borivali) Ltd. and Anr.

Urmila Chandrakant Baviskar Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Medical Edu. and Drugs Dept. and Ors.

Forum of Natural Gas Industrial Consumers, Mumbai Vs Union of India and Ors.

Evolis Cardprinter India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India through Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Rahul Nivruti Bhosale Vs Maharashtra Academy of Navel Education and Training (Manet), Pune and Ors.