Disposed

Mr. Baburao Tukaram Mhatre Sole Proprietor v. the City and Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC2 May 2018WP/2407/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order disposed of a writ petition by directing the CIDCO to decide the petitioner's regularisation representation within two months, while maintaining status quo and a two-week notice period for adverse orders.

What did the court decide?

Direction to CIDCO to decide regularisation application within two months; status quo maintained; two weeks notice for adverse decisions.

Mr. Baburao Tukaram Mhatre Sole Proprietor Vs the City… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

Mhi

WP-2407-18.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2407 OF 2018

¶5

Mr. Baburao Tukaram Mhatre Sole Proprietor of M/s. Hotel Sai Nidhi Petitioner Versus

¶6

The City & Industrial Development Corporation &Ors.

¶7

Respondents

¶8

Mr.R.D.Soni a/w Mr. Sujay Gawade a/w Ms. Anita Dubey i/b. Shree & Co. for the Petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP, for the State. Mr. S.S.Diwan i/b. Mr. A.M.Kulkarni for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶10

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV,JJ. DATE : 2^nd May, 2018.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective

¶13

parties and having gone through the petition along with annexures thereto, we deem it convenient to dispose of this petition by directing the Respondent-CIDCO to decide the regularisation application made by the petitioner as early as possible, and preferably within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Ordered accordingly.

¶14

It is made clear that we have not gone into merits of the

Mhi

WP-2407-18.doc

matter. All points and contentions are kept open and the Authorized Officer of the CIDCO shall decide the representation of the petitioner for regularisation independently, on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶19

In order to enable the Authorized Officer of CIDCO to decide the said representation, the petitioner shall remain present before the CIDCO/Authorized Officer on 10.5.2018 along with a copy of the said representation for regularisation and a copy of this order.

¶20

Till the decision of the representation for regularisation by the CIDCO Authorized Officer, both the parties shall maintain status quo as on today.

¶21

In the event the order of the CIDCO is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, CIDCO shall not implement the decision for a period of two weeks from the date of intimation thereof to the petitioner.

¶22

[SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.]

¶23

[RANJIT MORE,J.]

Mr. Baburao Tukaram Mhatre Sole Proprietor v. the City and Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Baburao Tukaram Mhatre Sole Proprietor v. the City and Industrial Development Corporation 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

Mr. Namdev Chhakdu Gajbhare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Sou. Bharati Shantaram Bhujbal through Poa Vs Smt. Vimal Ashok Ghumatkar and Ors.

Adonis Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Ramesh G Surve and 2 Ors. Vs M/S. Samarth Erectors and Developers and Anr.

Rakesh Motichand Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Goyal Properties and Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.