Disposed

Bindiya Harkisan Malkani and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Jul 2022WP/7663/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an exparte stay order impacting a revision in revenue matters. The Single Judge directed the competent authority to hear all parties afresh within a stipulated timeline and dispose of the stay application without being influenced by the impugned order. The stay remained in operation during the interim.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the requested authority of Respondent No. 1-State of Maharashtra to hear all parties and dispose of the stay application afresh without being influenced by the impugned order dated 25th A

Bindiya Harkisan Malkani and Ors. Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2022)

Arjun

34-WP-7663-2022.doc

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 7663 OF 2022

¶6

Bindiya Harkisan Malkani & Ors. …Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents

¶7

Mr. Swanand Ganoo a/w Sonal Awasthi & Mr. Harshvardhan Suryavanshi i/b M/s Vinod Mistry & Co., for the Petitioners. Mr. Girish Godbole a/w Mr. S. Patil, Mr. Pavan S. Patil & Mr. Nitin Patil, for the Respondent No. 3. Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP, for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 12 to 16-State.

¶8

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 19^th July, 2022

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Heard Mr. Swanand Ganoo, learned counsel appearing for

¶11

the Petitioners, Mr. Girish Godbole, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 and learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 12 to 16.

¶12

At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners seeks leave to delete Respondent Nos. 4 to 11. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

¶13

By this Petition, the Petitioners have challenged the order dated 25^th April, 2022 passed by the Revenue Minister of the State of

¶14

Arjun 34-WP-7663-2022.doc 2/3

¶15

Maharashtra by which order dated 8^th April, 2022 passed in RTS Revision No. 539/19 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division was stayed.

¶16

It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that in spite of filing caveat without serving the Petitioners, exparte-order of stay was passed.

¶17

It is the contention of the Respondent No. 3 that the caveat was not served on the Respondent No. 3 which is denied by the learned counsel of the Petitioner.

¶18

However, it is to be noted that the stay granted by the impugned order is in operation since 25^th April, 2022. In view of this, without going into the aspect whether caveat was actually served or not, the interest of justice will be served if concerned authority of Respondent No. 1-State of Maharashtra is directed to hear all the parties and decide stay Application afresh without influenced by the impugned order dated 25^th April, 2022.

¶19

All the parties i.e. Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 to appear before the concerned authority of State of Maharashtra on 26^th July, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. The concerned authority is requested to dispose of the stay Application on or before 12^th August, 2022 without

¶20

Arjun 34-WP-7663-2022.doc 3/3

¶21

influenced by order dated 25^th April, 2022. Till the disposal of stay Application by the concerned authority of Respondent No. 1-State of Maharashtra, the impugned order dated 25^th April, 2022 shall remain in operation.

¶22

It is made clear that this order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all the parties and it is further made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the

¶23

case.

¶24

The writ Petition is disposed of in above terms with no

¶25

order as to costs.

¶26

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)

Bindiya Harkisan Malkani and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindiya Harkisan Malkani and Ors. 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

Santacruz (West) Education Society Thr. Trustee and Authorized Dr. Seema Gupta vs Madanmohan Chandrabhan Gupta

Tangaraj Palaniswamy Arudadiar vs Enquiry Officer and Anr.

Rajesh J Gupta Vs Manohar Mulchand Dorwani and Ors.

Vanita Yashwant Kangutkar and Ors. Vs Subhash Pandurang Nakhawa

Shri Markandeya Mandir Trust through Chairman/Authorized Representative Sudhakar R. Pathak Vs Ramesh Dhondiram Jople and Anr.

June Gavthan Maruti Devasthan , Pimplas, (Proposed Trust) and Ors. Vs the Asstt. Charity Commissioner, Nashik Region and Ors.