The Court granted a stay preventing demolition of the petitioner's building while an appeal against regularisation rejection is pending before the State Government, directing disposal within six months.
Respondents 2 & 3 restrained from demolishing the suit building; Respondent 1 directed to decide appeal within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp-3106/16.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3106 OF 2016
M/s. Vardhaman Construction. ..Petitioner. Versus
State of Maharashtra & Others.
..Respondents.
Mr. R. S. Apte, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mandar Limaye and Mr. K. S. Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. P. G. Sawant, learned AGP for the State. Ms. Swati Sagvekar for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Coram : Ranjit More & Dr.(Smt) S. S. Phansalkar-Joshi, JJ. Date : March 11, 2016 .
P. C. :
parties.
. Mr. Apte submitted that the Petitioner apprehend that in the absence of any protection to the Petitioner in the said
1 / 4
patilsr
wp-3106/16.
appeal despite having diligently adopted the statutory remedies, the construction in question would be demolished by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in pursuance of the earlier notice given under section 53 of the MRTP Act, rendering the Petitioner's appeal infructuous.
2 / 4
patilsr
wp-3106/16.
apprehension of Mr. Apte. As of today, having adopted the legal recourse of appeal and taking out stay application therein, no orders are made on such stay application by the appellate authority. In that view of the matter, it would be just and proper to protect the Petitioner in the interregnum till the appeal is decided on merits. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition in following terms :
3 / 4
patilsr
wp-3106/16.
till the expiry of the period of one week from the date of communication of such decision to the Petitioner. After the expiry of one week's period, the Petitioner shall demolish the structure in question on his own subject to any protection that may be granted by any competent authority/court.
[Dr. (Smt.) S. S. Phansalkar-Joshi, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]
4 / 4
patilsr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to protect the petitioners structure from demolition pending disposal of their statutory appeal.
Whether to issue a direction to the Respondent to decide the appeal within a fixed period.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Vardhaman Construction
State of Maharashtra
Respondent No. 2
Respondent No. 3
Ranjit More
Dr. (Smt) S. S. Phansalkar-Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
