Petitioner sought to quash an order allowing forceable possession of a flat. Due to subsequent Supreme Court developments and respondent inaction, the petition was declared infructuous.
null
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
10 wp 653-22-c
Priya Soparkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.653 OF 2022
PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR
Pratibha Milk Industries and anr.… Petitioners
V/s.
The Collector (Home Branch), Pune and ors.… Respondents
Digitally signed by PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR
Date: 2022.07.30 10:15:47 +0530
Mr.Vivek Patil alongwith Mr.Yogesh Shirwadkar, Advocates for the
Petitioners.
Ms.R.A.Salunkhe, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.
CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM AND
A.S.DOCTOR, JJ.
DATE : JULY 27, 2022.
P.C.:-
1.Mr.Patil states that in view of subsequent developments, post
filing the petition, the petition has become infructuous. On 20th
January, 2022, the following order came to be passed:-
“1.This writ petition is entertained having regard to the order
dated December 16, 2021 passed by the Supreme Court in Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No. 10911 of 2021 (State Bar Council of
Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India).
2.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel
submits that the respondent no. 3 is duly served with an Advocate’s
notice. Let an affidavit of service showing service upon the
respondent no. 3 be filed during the course of this day.
3.On behalf of the petitioners it is submitted that the
possession of the flat being the subject matter of this writ petition is
likely to be taken pursuant to the order dated June 8, 2021 passed
by the Additional District Magistrate, Pune, which would result in
dispossession of the petitioners. Learned counsel relied upon the No
Objection Certificate (hereafter “NOC”, for short) dated April 8,
2
10 wp 653-22-c
Priya Soparkar
2019 (page 81 of the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 3
stating that the respondent no. 3 has no claim or right whatsoever
against the said flat. Learned counsel submitted that the said NOC
might not have been placed before the Additional District
Magistrate, Pune. Perusal of the impugned order dated June 8, 2021
indicates that the said order does not refer to the NOC which is at
page 81 of the writ petition.
4.In this view of the matter, issue notice to the respondent no.
3, returnable on January 27, 2022. There shall be an ad-interim
order in terms of prayer clause (b) for a period of two weeks or until
further orders, whichever is earlier.
5.In addition to Court’s notice, the petitioners to serve copy of
the petition along with the copy of this order on the respondent no.
3 and file additional affidavit of service by the next date.
6.Mr. Pabale, learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of
respondent nos. 1 and 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners
undertakes to serve the copy of the writ petition on Mr. Pabale,
learned AGP during the course of this day.”
2. The office remark indicates Advocate for petitioner has not
supplied copies for serving notice upon respondent No.3. Petitioner,
however, has filed an affidavit of one Swapnil Velonde affirmed on
12th July, 2022 confirming service of petitioner and the copy of the
order dated 20th January, 2022 upon respondent No.3. It appears
respondent No.3 has been served on 29th January, 2022. Respondent
No.3, however, is not present though served.
3. Ms.Salunkhe for respondent Nos.1 and 2 leaves it to Court to pass such orders as deemed fit.
4. In view of what is recorded in the order dated 20th January, 2022
and the fact that respondent No.3 shows no desire to oppose the
petition, petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) which
reads as under :-
3
10 wp 653-22-c
Priya Soparkar
“(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the records and proceedings of the Respondent Nos.1 in relation to the procedure followed by the Respondent No.1 for passing of the impugned order against the Petitioners for taking forceable possession of the said property which is already released by the Respondent No. 3 and 4 and after examining the legality and validity of the same be pleased to quash and set aside the said impugned order dated 08.06.2021 and impugned Notice dated 23.12.2021.”5. Petition disposed. No order as to costs.
(A.S.DOCTOR, J.)
(K.R.SHRIRAM, J.)
Priya Soparkar
Pratibha Milk Industries
The Collector (Home Branch), Pune
K.R.SHRIRAM
A.S.DOCTOR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court