Disposed

Indus Towers Limited v. Gram Panchayat Kalundre and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Jun 2016WP/5993/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition for interim protection from coercive action challenging a resolution and order of a Gram Panchayat. Court granted liberty to file appeal under Section 154 and restricted respondents from taking coercive steps.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to approach Authority under Section 154; Respondent No.1 restrained from coercive steps pending interim relief.

Indus Towers Limited Vs Gram Panchayat Kalundre and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2016)

WP.5993/2016(P-9)

mnm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 5993 OF 2016

¶6

Indus Towers Liomited & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. Gram Panchayat Kalundre & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Surel S. Shah a/w. Mr. Prasad D. a/w. Mr. T. Kapadia i/b. D.H. Law Associates, Advocates for the Petitioners Mr. S.D. Butalal, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the State, Respondent Nos. 3 & 4

¶8

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR &

¶9

M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 7^TH JUNE, 2016

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Matter is not on board. In view of the urgency taken on

¶12

board and heard forthwith.

¶13

Parties through their Counsel. Learned Counsel for the

¶14

Respondents seek time to file reply. Two weeks time is granted.

¶15

The Petitioners are permitted to amend the Petition

¶16

WP.5993/2016(P-9)

¶17

¶18

during the course of the day so as to challenge the resolution as also the order dated 1^st June, 2016 passed by the Gram Pachayat Kalunde (Bhingari Pada). Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 raised a preliminary objection that an alternative remedy is available under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 for challenging the said resolution and the order by approaching the appropriate Authority.

¶19

Facing the aforesaid preliminary objection the learned Counsel for the Petitioners seek leave to withdraw this Petition with liberty to the Petitioners to challenge the impugned resolution and the impugned order before the Authority prescribed under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958. However, he submits that till the Petitioners approaches the Authority with an application for interim relief some protection be granted to the Petitioners against the proposed coercive action by Respondent No.1.

¶20

Having considered the aforesaid submissions made by

¶21

the learned Counsel we are inclined to grant liberty to the

¶22

WP.5993/2016(P-9)

¶23

¶24

Petitioners to approach the Authority as specified under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 is granted.

¶25

The Petitioners to approach the said Authority within a period of three weeks from today. The Petitioners may also file an application for interim relief before the said Authority. Till the Petitioners' application for interim relief is considered, and appropriate decision is taken by the said Authority the Respondent No.1 is restrained from taking any coercive steps in pursuance to the impugned resolution and the order dated 1^st June, 2016. Needless to say that the Petitioners shall not seek unnecessary adjournments before the said Authority. All

¶26

contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶27

The Petition is disposed off accordingly.

¶28

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

Indus Towers Limited v. Gram Panchayat Kalundre and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indus Towers Limited v. Gram Panchayat Kalundre 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

Jamnabai M Dhumade (Deceased) through Heir Ashok Mangal Dhumade Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Ali Akbar Yusuf Khokhawala and Aziz Yusuf Khokhawala Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Nityanand Harnarayan Mishra Vs Municipal Commissioner and 4 Ors.

Pravin Dattatray Mhatre Vs Thane Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Zeevat Shoyal Supariwala Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Eruch Darabsha Mastar of Bombay Vs M/S. Sagar Vihar Hotel and Ors.