Petitioner challenged a show-cause notice for potential cancellation of building permission. Disposed without merits; parties to appear subsequently for final decision.
Petition disposed; no decision on merits; direction for hearing and fresh decision within four weeks.
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.
1.wp662.18.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 662 OF 2018
Prashant Aditya Shukla and ors. .. Petitioners.
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents.
Mr.Sushil Inamdar i/b. Mr. Vijay Killedar, advocate for petitioners. Mr. B.D. Joshi, advocate for respondent No. 2.
Mrs.M.P. Thakur, AGP for State.
Mr. G.S. Godbole I/b. Ms. Nikita Jacob, advocate for respondent No. 3.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 13, 2018.
P. C. :
1 By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging impugned notice dated 28/12/2017 issued by respondent No. 2-Chief Officer, Ambarnath Municipal Council, to the petitioner to show-cause why the building permission granted in his favour should not be cancelled.
2 In pursuant to the abovesaid notice, the Petitioner has filed reply dated 11/1/2018. Mr. Joshi, Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 on instructions makes a statement that petitioner's reply to the
Talwalkar
1.wp662.18.doc
2
impugned notice would be considered and appropriate decision would be taken, after hearing all concerned including the petitioner and respondent No. 3. Statement accepted.
3 In the light of the above, nothing survives for consideration in this petition. The Petition is disposed of.
4 It is made clear that we have not gone into merits of the Petition. All points and contentions of the respective parties are kept open. Needless to mention this order should not be considered as an expression of any opinion on merit and respondent No. 2 shall take appropriate decision independently, in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of 4 weeks from the receipt of this order.
[SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]
Talwalkar
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prashant Aditya Shukla
The State of Maharashtra
RANJIT MORE
SADHANA S. JADHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
