Allowed

Samata Nagar Co-Operative Housing Societies Union Ltd. and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC19 Mar 2018WP/937/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the relief authority to consider the petitioner's application to initiate action under Section 95 (A) of the MHADA Act, 1976, within two months, provided no legal impediment exists.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 4 to consider the Petitioners' application under Section 95 (A) of the MHADA Act, 1976, within two months.

Samata Nagar Co-Operative Housing Societies Union Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors. — Bombay HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

23-wpl-837-2018.doc

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.837 OF 2018

¶4

Samata Nagar Co-Operative Housing Societies Union Limited and Anr. ...Petitioners vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Saket Mone, Mr. Vishesh Kalra, Mr. Subit Chakrabarti i/b. Vidhi Partners, for the Petitioners.

¶6

Mr. Amit Shastri, AGP for the Respondent-State. Mr. P.G. Lad a/w. Ms. Sayali Apte, for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Mr. S.V. Gutte, for Respondent No. 5.

¶7

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ.

¶8

DATE : MARCH 19, 2018

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

. Parties through their counsel.

¶11

Rule.

¶12

With consent of the parties heard finally and disposed

¶13

of at the stage of admission.

¶14

The Petitioners claims to be an apex Cooperative

¶15

Housing Society. It has filed this Petition seeking direction to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to consider and decide its application dated 20^th February, 2018 (Exhibit “E”).

1/3

Vishal Parekar

23-wpl-837-2018.doc

It has been stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that there is an interim order passed on 2^nd December, 2016 in Writ Petition (L) No. 3084 of 2016 directing to maintain status quo in respect of the premises in question but the said order of status quo will not come into the way of the Petitioners as the subject matter of the said Writ Petition (L) No. 3084 of 2016 is Plot No. T-1, T-6/3 & 4 as per the sanctioned plan of the year 2005 and the completion certificate dated 31^st August, 2005. In the circumstances, according to him, there is no legal impediment for Respondent No. 4 to allow the Petitioners' request. According to the Petitioners, the prayer is in respect of Building No. 2-E and not the structures as referred to in the Writ Petition (L) No. 3084 of 2016.

¶20

Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners as also the learned counsel for Respondent-MHADA, we dispose of this Petition by directing Respondent No. 4 to consider and take appropriate decision on the Petitioners' request to initiate action under Section 95 (A) of the MHADA Act, 1976 made as per Exhibit “E”, in accordance with law, if it finds that there is no legal impediment.

¶21

The decision as aforesaid be taken as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of

2/3

Vishal Parekar

23-wpl-837-2018.doc

copy of this order.

Rule made absolute with the aforesaid terms.

¶27

Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶28

(MAKARAND KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)

¶29

3/3

¶30

Vishal Parekar

Samata Nagar Co-Operative Housing Societies Union Ltd. and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samata Nagar Co-Operative Housing Societies Union Ltd. and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girni Kamgar Sabha and 35 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Maharashtra Wholesale Wine Merchants Association and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary Home Dept. and Ors.

Nagar Parishad Gharfala Vadh Virodhi Kruti Samiti Kurundwad through Shri. Sunil Balwant Kurundwde Vs the Chief Secreatary the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rupali Rajkiran Chinde Vs Union of India through the Sec. , and Ors.

Bombay Bus Owners Association a Registered Association Vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and Anr.

Smt. Babita Gopal Pawar Alias Smt. Bebi Maruti Gadekar Vs the Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla Parishad, Solapur and Ors.