Disposed

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

Bombay HC16 Dec 2021WP/2270/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner society alleged unauthorized construction of a temple by the respondents. The High Court accepted the petitioners undertaking to dispose of illegal construction within six weeks if found unauthorized, recorded an assurance of police protection, and disposed of the petition. The construction measurement was 170 sq.ft.

What did the court decide?

The High Court accepted the undertaking to take action against the illegal construction within six weeks and disposed of the writ petition.

Om Adishwar Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.,through Its… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Digitally signed ANANT by ANANT KRISHNA KRISHNA NAIKDate: NAIK 2021.12.18 14:06:20 +0530

¶2

1/2

¶3

25.WP.2270.2018 .doc

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2270 OF 2018

¶6

Om Adishwar Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. ...Petitioner V/s.

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Manish N. Jain a/w S. M. Jain i/b S. M. Jain & Associates for the Petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Swati Sagvekar for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. Mr. Abbas Zaidy i/b Zohaiir & Co. for Respondent No.4. Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent-State.

¶11

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

¶12

DATED : 16^th DECEMBER, 2021

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

The Petition is fled by the Petitioner-Society alleging unauthorized construction of the temple admeasuring 170 (carpet) sq.ft. by the Respondent No. 4 & 5.

¶15

AfÏdavit-in-Reply is fled on behalf of the RespondentCorporation and the copy of the same has been handed over to learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 4.

¶16

In the AfÏdavit-in-Reply the Respondent-Corporation has annexed the notice dated 08.03.2021 issued to the Respondent No. 4 (which according to the Respondent–Corporation was refused to be accepted by the Respondent No. 4) under section 53 of the MRTP

1/2

AKN

2/2

25.WP.2270.2018 .doc

Act.

We record the statement of learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 4, that the Respondent No. 4 through its authorized person shall appear before the Competent Authority of the Respondent-Corporation who has issued notice dated 08.03.2021 on 23^rd December, 2021 at 11.00 AM alongwith its Reply to the Notice dated 08.03.2021. The Competent Authority shall, after hearing the Respondent No. 4, pass appropriate orders on the Notice dated 08.03.2021 expeditiously and in any event within a period of 6 weeks from 23^rd December, 2021.

¶23

We accept the statement made in the said AfÏdavit-in-Reply of the Respondent-Corporation as an undertaking to the Court, that the Respondent-Corporation shall take action against the illegal construction. Such action shall be taken if it is found by the Competent Authority that the construction of the temple is illegal and unauthorised. In the event the Respondent–Corporation has any apprehension of law and order situation, it is always open for it to seek appropriate police protection. The concerned police station shall cooperate in that regard.

¶24

The Petition to stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶25

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶26

2/2

¶27

AKN

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

Chintamani Moreshwar Patil Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Urban Development Department and Ors.