Disposed

M/S. Varun Trading Company v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Dec 2016WP/2762/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging cancellation of land allotment for a school. Court allowed the petitioner liberty to submit a detailed representation to Respondent No. 2 for fresh decision within two months, keeping the land under reservation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit detailed representation; direction to Respondent No. 2 to decide within two months without influence of impugned order; reservation of land.

M/S. Varun Trading Company Vs Maharashtra Housing… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

46-wp-2762-2016.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATTE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2762 OF 2016

¶4

M/s. Varun Trading Company ...Petitioner vs.

¶5

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Another

¶6

...Respondents

¶7

Mr. P.J. Thorat a/w. Mr. Prayag Joshi, for the Petitioner Mr. Vaibhav Parashurami, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶8

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.

¶9

DATE : DECEMBER 19, 2016

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

. Parties through their counsel.

¶12

Challenging the order dated 4^th July, 2012 (Exhibit X) by

¶13

which the allotment of the land made in favour of the Petitioner for running a school has been cancelled by the Respondents, the Petitioner has filed this Petition.

¶14

According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner has deposited

¶15

the amount as was required to have deposited on delayed payment, interest was also charged which the Petitioner had paid. Subsequently,

1/3

Vishal Parekar

46-wp-2762-2016.doc

communication was received by the Petitioner that as the area of the land was more than what was earlier shown, the Petitioner was asked to pay the additional amount. The additional amount was also paid by the Petitioner and the draft Lease Agreement was prepared. However, by the impugned communication the Petitioner has been informed about the cancellation of the agreement on the ground that initial amount was not paid by the Petitioner within 90 days.

¶20

The case of the Petitioner is that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Chief Officer of Respondent No. 2 in the light of policy decision dated 3^rd October, 2012.

¶21

The learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that in case the Petitioner submits a fresh detailed representation, the same will be considered by the Chief Officer of Respondent No. 2 in accordance with law and in terms of the said policy.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid submission as agreed by learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this Petition with liberty to the Petitioner to submit a detail representation before Respondent No. 2.

2/3

Vishal Parekar

46-wp-2762-2016.doc

On receipt of the same, Respondent No. 2 shall take fresh decision keeping in view the aforesaid policy in regard to the Petitioner's representation without being influenced by the order impugned in this Petition.

¶27

Let the decision as aforesaid be taken by Respondent No.

¶28

2 within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶29

Till the Petitioner's representation is decided afresh, the subject land shall not be allotted to any other party.

¶30

The Petition stands disposed of as such.

¶31

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

¶32

3/3

¶33

Vishal Parekar

M/S. Varun Trading Company v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Varun Trading Company v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Anr.

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

Shri. Narsinh Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Sangawadewadi, through Secretary and Ors. Vs Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur and Ors.

Majumdar Ujwala Moreshwar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sunita Pandurang Patil Vs Adarsh Mahila Mandal, through Secretary / Chairman and Ors.

Sharad Baburao Patil Vs Union of India, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Parcharam @ Parcho Kewalram Ailani @ Vidyarthi Vs Union of India and Anr.

Adarsh Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Secretary, Mrs. Mannaware and Ors. Vs Education Officer Secondary and Ors.