Disposed

Parimal Harishchanra Kokate v. Additional Collector (Enc)/(Rem) Eastern Suburbs and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC15 Mar 2018WP/930/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two writ petitions, the Bombay High Court disposed of matters by directing respondent authorities not to take coercive steps against petitioners' structures pending decisions on stay applications. The court mandated the appellate authority to decide stay applications within two weeks and appeals within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent authorities directed not to take coercive steps pending stay decisions; appellate authority directed to decide stays within two weeks and appeals within three months.

Parimal Harishchanra Kokate Vs Additional Collector… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

910 & 912. WPL 826-18 & 829-18.doc

¶2

DDR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 826 OF 2018

¶5

Mr. Prafull Harishchandra Kamble ...Petitioner

¶6

Vs. Additional Collector (ENC)/(REM), & ors. ...Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 829 OF 2018

¶9

Mr. Parimal Harishchandra Kamble ...Petitioner

¶10

Vs. Additional Collector (ENC)/(REM), & ors. ...Respondents

¶11

Mr. S.S. Sawant for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Paresh Shah, respondent No.3 – present in person.

¶13

Mr. A.C. Jadhav, Naib Tahsildar, Additional Collector Office, for respondent No.4.

¶14

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M.S.KARNIK, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 15^th MARCH, 2018.

¶16

1/4

¶17

910 & 912. WPL 826-18 & 829-18.doc

¶18

P.C. :

¶19

Parties through their Counsel.

¶20

In the earlier round of litigation, this Court on 19^th January, 2018 in Writ Petition (L) No. 175/2018 and Writ Petition (L) No. 180 of 2018 filed by the present petitioners had passed the following order :-

¶21

P.C. :-

¶22

The petitioner, in both the Petitions, has a remedy of tendering an appeal to the appellate forum objecting to the order passed by the Deputy Collector / Competent Authority, which is said to have been served upon him on 10.01.2018. The petitioners state that they will present the appeals raising challenge to the order passed by the Competent Authority within a period of one week from today together with applications seeking interim orders.

¶23

The appeals presented by the petitioners and / or applications seeking the interim relief shall be dealt with by the appellate forum and appropriate order shall be passed within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of the appeals. The respondent-authorities are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners for a period of four weeks from today.

¶24

2/4

¶25

910 & 912. WPL 826-18 & 829-18.doc

¶26

With the directions as above, Writ Petitions are disposed of.

¶27

According to the petitioners, the petitioners have filed appeals along with the prayer for interim relief, but the order on the prayer for interim relief has not been passed by the Appellate Authority as yet. They submit that the protection which was granted by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petitions

¶28

was only for four weeks. Respondent No.2 may demolish the petitioners' premises.

¶29

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and representatives of respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶30

Having regard to the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered view that these petitions deserve to be disposed of by granting protection to the petitioners to the effect that till the applications for stay are decided, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioners' structure. We order accordingly. We also make it clear that in case any adverse order is passed on the stay applications, the same shall not be given effect for a period of

¶31

3/4

¶32

910 & 912. WPL 826-18 & 829-18.doc

¶33

four weeks. We also expect that the Appellate Authority to decide the stay applications within two weeks from today and the appeals itself within three months.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid, both the petitions are disposed of.

¶35

( M.S.KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

¶36

4/4

Parimal Harishchanra Kokate v. Additional Collector (Enc)/(Rem) Eastern Suburbs and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parimal Harishchanra Kokate v. Additional Collector (Enc)/(Rem) Eastern Suburbs and 6 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

Niraj Mansulhlal Ved Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Ministry of Urban Development and 5 Ors.

S. D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Department of Revenue and 6 Ors.

Mr. Masood Abdul Aziz Fakih and Ors. Vs Mr. Shakeel Farid and Anr.

Prafull Harishchandra Kamble Vs Add.Collector (Enc) / (Rem)

Sou. Chhaya Vinayak Ghare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Machindra Somaji Fale Vs the State of Maharshtra through the Sec. Revenu Deptt.