Disposed

Sahinder Pritamsingh Khanuja through Their Constituted Attorney and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through Gp and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Jan 2018WP/14113/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerning development permission was disposed of on modified terms. The court directed the Municipal Corporation to decide the application within one month, ensuring compliance with a specific prior judgment.

What did the court decide?

Directive to decide the development permission application within one month; compliance with prior judgment ensured despite procedural lapse.

Sahinder Pritamsingh Khanuja through Their… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

p-506-wp-14113-2017-corrected

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 14113 OF 2017

¶4

Sahinder Pritamsingh Khanuja Through Their Constituted Attorney And Ors. ...Petitioners

¶5

Versus The State Of Maharashtra Through GP And Anr. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr.Shardul Singh i/b Robin Thomas Georgue for the Petitioners.

¶7

Mrs.R.A. Salunkhe, AGP for Respondent No.1.

¶8

Mr.Prashant Kamble i/b Mr.A.S. Rao for Respondent No.2.

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA & P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 17^th JANUARY 2018

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Not on board. Taken on board.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶14

and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent on instructions states that the second respondent shall withdraw the letter dated 09^th August 2017 (Exh.'D' to the petition).

¶15

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 3

¶16

p-506-wp-14113-2017-corrected

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the petitioners are not pressing prayer (b) and they are pressing prayer (c).

¶18

Accordingly, we dispose of the petition by passing

¶19

following order:-

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(a) Prayer (a) does not survive in view of the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent;

¶22

(b) Prayer (b) is not pressed;

¶23

(c) We direct the appropriate Officer of Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation to decide the application dated 30^th September 2016 made by the petitioners for grant of development permission as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of one month from today;

¶24

(d) We make it clear that the application shall be decided in the light of judgment and order dated 23^rd January 2014 in Writ Petition No.3971 of 2012 and that the Municipal Corporation shall not refuse to give effect to the said judgment on the ground that the gazette publication notifying the lapse of reservation

¶25

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 3

¶26

p-506-wp-14113-2017-corrected

¶27

has not been made by the State Government.

¶28

(e) The petition is disposed of on the above terms.

¶29

(P.N. DESHMUKH, J)

¶30

(A.S.OKA, J.)

Sahinder Pritamsingh Khanuja through Their Constituted Attorney and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through Gp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahinder Pritamsingh Khanuja through Their Constituted Attorney and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through Gp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Lodha Aria Chs Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 6 Ors.

Aslam Yousuf Warekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Irfan Mehboob Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Malabar Hill Citizens Forum and Anr. Vs the Assistant Municipal Commissioner D Ward and 6 Ors.

Malabar Hill Citizens Forum Society and Anr. Vs the Assistant Municipal Commissioner D Ward and 6 Ors.

Sahebrao S/O. Shankarrao Ranpise Vs the State of Maharashtra, Govt Pleader and Ors.