Disposed

Ekramul Hasan Abdul Hameed Momin v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Dec 2021WP/2217/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought directions to take action against illegal construction by the respondent developer. The High Court disposed of the writ petition by accepting the respondent corporation's affidavit undertaking to take appropriate legal action in accordance with the pending civil court orders, finding no need for interim relief.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of by accepting the respondent corporation's undertaking to take appropriate action in accordance with the civil court's orders.

Ekramul Hasan Abdul Hameed Momin Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Digitally signed ANANT by ANANTKRISHNA NAIK KRISHNA Date: NAIK 2021.12.1814:03:55 +0530

¶2

1/2

¶3

24.WP.2217.2018.doc

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 2217 OF 2018

¶5

Ekramul Hasan Abdul Hameed Momin Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) a/w. Adv. Abhijit Patil for the Petitioner

¶9

Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for Respondent-State

¶10

Mr. Suraj N. Naik i/b. Mr. R. D. Suryawanshi for the Respondent No.5 Adv. Pooja R. Singh i/b. Adv. Bubna for Respondent-Corporation

¶11

CORAM : A. A. SAYED & ABHAY AHUJA, JJ

¶12

DATED : 16^th DECEMBER, 2021

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

The Petition has been fled essentially seeking directions to the Respondent-Corporation to take action against the Respondent No. 5- Developer in respect of construction which according to the Petitioner is illegal and unauthorized.

¶15

AfÏdavit-in-Reply has been fled by the Respondente Corporation. In paragraph no. 3 of the said AfÏdavit-in-Reply, it is stated as follows:

¶16

“3. I say that admittedly respondent corporation has issued notice in respect of concerned construction and has also lodged prosecution against concerned persons. I say that the Respondent No. 5 has fled R.C.S. No. 342 of 2015 in the Court of CJJD Bhiwandi for restraining respondent corporation from demolishing impugned construction. I say that by order dated 08/09/2015 Ld. Civil Court has granted

1/2

AKN

2/2

24.WP.2217.2018.doc

temporary injunction restraining respondent corporation from demolishing impugned construction. I say that suit is pending and interim order is in force. I say that appropriate action will be taken in respect of concerned structure, in accordance with orders to be passed by civil court.”

¶22

We note that the Respondent-Corporation has already taken action by issuing notice and lodging prosecution against the concerned persons. Learned Counsel for the Respondent e Corporation states that so far as the civil suit (wherein the interim order is in force) is concerned, the same is partly heard before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Bhiwadi.

¶23

In the circumstances, we dispose of the Petition by accepting the statement made in paragraph no. 3 of the AfÏdavit-in-Reply of the Respondent-Corporation that appropriate action in respect of the concerned structure shall be taken. Such action shall be taken in accordance with law after the order is passed by the Civil Court disposing of the suit. We accept the statement in the AfÏdavit-inReply of the Respondent-Corporation as an undertaking to this Court.

¶24

The Petition to stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶25

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (A. A. SAYED, J.)

¶26

2/2

¶27

AKN

Ekramul Hasan Abdul Hameed Momin v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ekramul Hasan Abdul Hameed Momin v. State of Maharashtra 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

Money Magnum Nest Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sameer Fazle Kadar Khan and 2 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, (Ministry of Revenue Dept. )3 Ors.

Sameer Fazle Kadar Khan and 2 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Mr. Prakash Govind Savairam Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Public Proecutor and Ors.

Mr. Prakash Govind Savairam Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Public Proecutor and Ors.

Om Adishwar Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.,through Its Chairman/ Secretary Vs State of Maharashtra , through Its Secretary and Ors.