Dismissed

M/S Rysha Multibrand Watch Store a Partnership Firm v. State of Maharashtra Thr Minister of Industries and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Aug 2023WP/10042/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a watch store owner, filed a writ petition challenging a dispute with a private entity regarding a structure on a MIDC plot. The court observed that MIDC had merely accepted an application for permission to demolish but had not ordered demolition itself, and the dispute appeared purely private.

What did the court decide?

No reliefs possible; writ petition rejected. No order as to costs.

M/S Rysha Multibrand Watch Store a Partnership Firm Vs… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

501-ASWP-10042-2023.DOC

¶2

Gitalaxmi

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10042 OF 2023

¶4

Rysha Multibrand Watch Store, A Partnership Firm

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra through Minister of Industries & Ors

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Mr Vishal Kanade , with Vikas Kumbhar, Shruti Kumbhar, Karen Jeffries, i/b PV Nichani & Co, for the Petitioner. Ms PN Diwan, AGP , for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3.

¶10

Dr Birendra Saraf, AG , with Akshay Karlekar, i/b Shreeyog Law Associates, for Respondent No. 2-MIDC.

¶11

Mr Rahul Soman , i/b Rajeev Sawant & Associates, for Respondent No. 4.

¶12

Mr Mukesh Vashi, Senior Counsel , i/b PY Shankar, with Sandhya Yadav, for Respondent No. 5.

¶13

CORAM G. S. Patel & Neela Gokhale, JJ. DATED: 10th August 2023

¶14

PC:-

¶15

Heard.

¶16

There is a dispute of long standing between the Petitioner, a watch store, and the 5th Respondent, a private entity, KPL Exports Private Limited. This relates to a structure on plot no. 4 of about

¶17

Page 1 of 3 10th August 2023

¶18

501-ASWP-10042-2023.DOC

¶19

1800 sq mtrs at ‘D’ III Block, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (“ MIDC ”), Village Akurdi, Taluka Haveli, District Pune.

¶20

Between these two parties there are at least three litigations. One is in the Small Causes Court where there is an eviction proceeding against the Petitioner. The Petitioner has separately sought specific performance in a Civil Court. There was a third proceeding for an injunction against MIDC from taking any action and, on account of a statutory bar or ouster of jurisdiction, an Interim Application in that suit was rejected.

¶21

The 5th Respondent is a permitted assignee of the allotment of this plot from MIDC. Before the 5th Respondent constructs or demolishes any structure, it needs MIDC permission. It simply sought MIDC permission on the ground that the structure in question at this plot (and in which structure the Petitioner has a watch shop) was dilapidated. The photographs shown by Mr Kanade for the Petitioner will not alter the factual position one way or the other and it is not possible for this Writ Court to assess structural audit reports absent a statutory framework. Those are after all expert documents. These are all therefore disputed questions of fact.

¶22

What is it that the Petitioner seeks against the only public authority concerned, i.e., MIDC? We note that MIDC has not undertaken the demolition. MIDC has not even ordered the demolition. MIDC has merely accepted the 5th Respondent’s

¶23

Page 2 of 3 10th August 2023

¶24

501-ASWP-10042-2023.DOC

¶25

application for permission to demolish. Obviously, any such demolition must be lawfully and in conformity with law. MIDC can hardly give permission to anybody to act otherwise than in accordance with law. It is precisely in pursuit of that permission, i.e., to act lawfully that the 5th Respondent even approached MIDC in the first place.

¶26

We are wholly unable to see why we should exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in what appears to be a purely private civil and even contractual dispute. There is no failure pointed out on the part of the only public authority, MIDC.

¶27

It is insufocient to say that the powers of a Writ Court are very wide. It is true that they are. But this does not mean that the Writ Court will intervene even when there is no prima facie case made out of a failure to perform a statutory or a constitution duty by an instrumentality of the State. We are seeing no fault that can be attributed to the MIDC for granting permission to the 5th Respondent.

¶28

No reliefs are possible. The Writ Petition is rejected. There will be no order to costs.

¶29

(Neela Gokhale, J)

¶30

Digitally signed GITALAXMIKRISHNA by GITALAXMIKRISHNAKOTAWADEKAR KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2023.08.11 11:49:32 +0545

¶31

Page 3 of 3 10th August 2023

M/S Rysha Multibrand Watch Store a Partnership Firm v. State of Maharashtra Thr Minister of Industries and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Rysha Multibrand Watch Store a Partnership Firm v. State of Maharashtra Thr Minister of Industries 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

Mallinath Basavanappa Samane Vs the Assistant Commissioner, Special District Social Welfare Officer Solapur and Ors.

Arun Kumar Deedwania Vs Head Quarter Chief Engineer Southern Comman and Anr.

Minakshi Bapusaheb Wadkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anand Kalidas Zalte Vs State of Maharashtra the the Honble Secretary School and Education Dept. and Ors.

Ms. Amruta Kashinath Jagtap (Mrs. Amruta Bhushan Pawar) Vs the State of Maha. Thr. Sec. School Education Dept and Ors.

Laxmikant Gajanan Jagtap Vs the State of Maha. Thr. Sec. Higher and Technical Education Dept. and Ors.