Allowed

Mormugao Port Authority v. Tukaram Manoj Parab and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC17 Apr 2023MCA/118/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application was filed to restore a PIL Writ Petition that had been disposed of earlier. The court quashed the disposal order, restored the petition, and directed that possession not be handed over without court leave if a show cause notice is ultimately discharged. The petition was placed for further consideration.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 25.07.2022 recalling disposal and restoring PIL WP No. 59/2021(F); disposal of this MCA with direction not to change status quo without court leave.

Mormugao Port Authority Vs Tukaram Manoj Parab… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

25-MCA-118-23.DOC

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 118 OF 2023 IN

¶4

PIL WRIT PETITION NO. 59 OF 2021(F)

¶5

MORMUGAO PORT AUTHORITY

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

 TUKARAM MANOJ PARAB AND 4 ORS

¶9

…Respondents.

¶10

Mr Yogesh Nadkarni, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr D.J. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr S. Parab, Addl. Govt. Advocate for Respondents-State. Mr Ashwin D. Bhobe, Advocate for org. Respondent No.1. Mr D. Zaveri, Advocate for Respondent No.1, 2 and 5.

¶11

CORAM : M. S. SONAK & VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 17^th APRIL 2023

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶15

2. PIL Writ Petition No. 59/2021(F) was disposed of by an order dated 25th July 2022, based on a statement of Mormugao Port Authority (MPA) that the impugned lease favouring the original Respondent No.1 had been terminated vide notice dated 30^th June 2022.

¶16

3. The MPA has now revoked the termination notice dated 30^th June 2022 and further issued a show cause notice dated 14^th March

¶17

Page 1 of 3 17/04/23

¶18

25-MCA-118-23.DOC

¶19

2023 to the original Respondent No.1. Mr Nadkarni says that this
show cause notice will be disposed of within two months.

¶20

4. Now that the basis for disposal of PIL Writ Petition No. 59/2021(F) has been altered, we accept the MPA's application and prayer for restoration of the PIL Writ Petition. Mr Zaveri, learned Counsel for the original Petitioners and Mr Bhobe, learned Counsel for original Respondent No.1 submit that this would be an appropriate course of action to adopt considering these subsequent developments.

¶21

5. Accordingly, the order dated 25th July 2022, disposing of the PIL Writ Petition No. 59/2021(F) is recalled and the PIL Writ Petition No. 59/2021(F) is restored to the file of this Court.

¶22

6. Mr Nadkarni and Mr Bhobe submit that though the notice of termination dated 30th June 2022 has been withdrawn, the possession of the leased premises is not handed over by the MPA to the original Respondent No.1. This statement is based on instructions. In particular, Mr Bhobe makes this statement based on instructions from Milind Prabhu, a representative of the original Respondent No.1. This statement is made notwithstanding certain clauses of the original lease deed.

¶23

7. Therefore, if the MPA ultimately decides to discharge the show cause notice dated 14th March 2023, the MPA should not

¶24

Page 2 of 3 17/04/23

¶25

25-MCA-118-23.DOC

¶26

change the status quo by handing over the possession without leave
of this Court.

¶27

8. Misc. Civil Application is disposed of, but a copy of this order be placed in PIL Writ Petition No. 59/2021(F).

¶28

9. Place the PIL Writ Petition No. 59/2021(F) for further consideration on 19th June 2023.

¶29

10. Mr Zaveri states that objections will be cleared within two weeks from today.

¶30

VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J. M. S. SONAK, J.

¶31

SANTOSH S Digitally signed by SANTOSH S MHAMAL MHAMAL Date: 2023.04.18 15:43:58 +05'30'

¶32

Page 3 of 3 17/04/23

Mormugao Port Authority v. Tukaram Manoj Parab and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mormugao Port Authority v. Tukaram Manoj Parab and 4 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

Yatra Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd. Thr Director Pradnya Pushpak Natekar Vs the Reserve Bank of India Thr. Dy. General Manager and 2 Ors.

Goa Tourisam Development Corporation Ltd., Thr. M.P. Balan Vs the Goa Foundation, Thr. Its Secretary, Dr. Claude Alvares and 17 Ors.

Sharmila Manohar Joshi Vs State of Goa Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Deepika Keshi and 4 Ors. Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and 5 Ors.

Hanumant Chandrakant Parab Vs the State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 9 Ors.

Fullarton Distilleries Pvt., Ltd., Vs State of Goa Thr., the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Anr.