Disposed

Shri Devdatta Jaywantrao Nikam v. the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Feb 2016WP/846/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted instructions from the second Respondent to recall certain orders and fix a date for hearing parties originally before them. The Court posed principles for hearing and directed the second Respondent to pass an expeditious order within two weeks, keeping merits open.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed accepting second Respondent's statement for future hearing date and directing an order within two weeks; legality of order withdrawal kept open.

Shri Devdatta Jaywantrao Nikam Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

wp-846.16

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.846 OF 2016

¶5

Shri Devdatta Jaywantrao Nikam … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. T.D. Deshmukh a/w Mr. Samrat K. Shinde for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondent No.1. Ms. Swati Sawant i/by S.K. Legal Associates for the Respondent No.2. Mr. Vijay D. Patil for Respondent Nos.3 to 5.

¶7

Mr. N.V. Walawalkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. S.R. Nargolkar i/by Mr. Swapnil Mohite for the Respondent Nos.6 and 7.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA &

¶9

C.V. BHADANG, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 9^th FEBRUARY, 2016

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 on instructions states that the Respondent No.2 will recall the orders dated 27^th October, 2015, 5^th January, 2016 and 8^th January, 2016. She further states that on 17^th February, 2016 at 3.00 pm, the parties will be heard on the original application dated 4^th September, 2015 filed by Shri Rajendra Shivajirao Nagawade and Shri Shrinivas Baburao Ghadge (the Respondent Nos.6 and 7). She further states that the parties which were before the Respondent No.2 when the aforesaid orders were passed will be heard. We accept the statements.

¶13

1 of 3

¶14

2 wp-846.16

¶15

2 The parties which were before the second Respondent and which are represented in this Petition need not be issued notice of the date fixed for hearing but all other parties will have to be served with the notice.

¶16

3 The learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent states that the second Respondent shall endeavour to pass an order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one week from 17^th February, 2016.

¶17

4 We may note here that if certain quantity of water is already released on the basis of the order dated 27^th October, 2015, the said fact will be taken into consideration by the second Respondent while passing the order.

¶18

5 Hence, by accepting the statements made on instructions by the learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent and subject to the observations made above, the Petition is disposed of.

¶19

6 We make it clear that the issue of legality and validity of the action of the second Respondent of withdrawing the aforesaid orders is expressly kept open which can be agitated by the parties in appropriate proceedings.

2 of 3

wp-846.16

7 We direct the second Respondent to ensure that all the concerned parties are given adequate opportunity of being heard.

¶24

8 Considering the issue involved the Respondent No.2 shall pass an order as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of two weeks from 17^th February, 2016.

¶25

9 All contentions on merits are kept open.

¶26

10 Rule is accordingly disposed of.

¶27

(C.V. BHADANG, J )

¶28

(A.S. OKA, J )

¶29

3 of 3

Shri Devdatta Jaywantrao Nikam v. the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Devdatta Jaywantrao Nikam v. the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushila Co.Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

M/S. Akshar Properties Vs Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Manisha Heights Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Suresh Shivram Palekar and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation for Gr.Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Venue Parking Infrastructure Private Limited Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Savitribai Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs Solapur Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.