Petitioner challenged alleged illegal construction by Respondent No. 3. Court found petition infructuous as Respondent No. 3 applied for regularisation following a proper notice, and disposed of the matter accordingly.
Petition disposed of as infructuous.
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. 843-15
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No. 843 OF 2015
Lalit S/o. Basudeo Agarwal … Petitioner Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents
Mr. Sushil Upadhyay i/b Ashok Saraogi, for the Petitioner. Mr. U. S. Upadhyay, AGP for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Vishal Ghosalkar i/b V. Abhishek, for Respondent No. 3.
CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & M. S. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 4, 2016
PC.
. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that petition has become infructuous by virtue of the subsequent event, which has taken place. The grievance of the Petitioner is that Respondent No. 3 has carried out illegal construction. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 has submitted that the Corporation has issued notice to Respondent No. 3, and he has now given reply to the Corporation, and he has applied for regularisation of the construction. In view of this, petition does not survive, and is accordingly disposed of as such.
Sd Sd/[M. S. KARNIK, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]
Vinayak Halemath
1 / 1
Lalit S/o. Basudeo Agarwal
The State of Maharashtra
V. M. Kanade
M. S. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
