Disposed

Santosh Prabhakar Kini v. Executive Engineer, Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Apr 2016WP/2069/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking a mandamus to execute an order regarding flat distribution in a redeveloped building, the Court held that writ jurisdiction was not exercisable due to disputed questions of fact and the availability of an alternate remedy. The petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition disposed of as writ jurisdiction not maintainable due to disputed facts and availability of alternate remedy.

Santosh Prabhakar Kini Vs Executive Engineer, Thane… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WP. 2069-15

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 2069 OF 2015

¶5

Santosh Prabhakar Kini … Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

¶7

Mr. A. A. Maniyar, for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Mandar Limaye, for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Vijay Patil, for Respondent No. 4. Mr. V. B. Thadani, AGP for Respondent No. 5.

¶9

¶10

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & M. S. KARNIK, JJ.

¶11

DATE : APRIL 4, 2016 PC.

¶12

By this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is seeking following relief:

¶13

“(a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of of mandamus or any other appropriate writ of direction or order in the nature of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing and ordering the Respondent No 1 to execute its order and

¶14

1 / 2

¶15

WP. 2069-15

¶16

Respondent No. 2 & 3 to comply with the order passed by the Respondent No. 1 herein, being Exhibit “D” herein;

¶17

(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, the distribution of the flats in the redeveloped building may be stayed;

¶18

¶19

(d) Costs of this writ petition be provided;

¶20

(e) the petitioner may kindly be granted such other and further reliefs as may be necessary in the interest of justice.”

¶21

The cause of action has arisen in 2007. The Petitioner has filed representation in 2015. In any case, this Court cannot exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since it involves disputed question of facts, and secondly, Petitioner has an alternate remedy of approaching an appropriate forum. Reserving the right of the Petitioner to exhaust an alternate remedy, which is available to him in law, writ petition is disposed of.

¶22

Sd/Sd/[M. S. KARNIK, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶23

Vinayak Halemath

¶24

2 / 2

Santosh Prabhakar Kini v. Executive Engineer, Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Prabhakar Kini v. Executive Engineer, Thane 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

Shaikh Zahid Mukhtar Vs All Maharashtra Human Rights Welfare Association through President Jayesh Mirani

Sandra D/O Karuppanan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Sumant Enterprises and Ors. Vs Shree Industries through Partner Mr. Shivaji Jayba Desai

Anil Morarji Kenia Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Others

Lalit Basudeo Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Navid Alam Mohd Amin Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Urban Development Dept. and Ors.