Disposed

Tejas Construction and Infrastructure Private Limited through Pradip Ramrao Shelar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC9 Jun 2023WP/3828/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandate to expedite eviction of shopholders and encroachers. Upon learning that removal steps were initiated, the court accepted the petitioner's submiss that the matter was worked out but cautioned authorities against unnecessary delays.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed off; Revenue Authorities cautioned against delays and buck-passing.

Tejas Construction and Infrastructure Private… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

903 WRIT PETITION NO.3828 OF 2020

¶4

TEJAS CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED
THROUGH PRADIP RAMRAO SHELAR

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Mr.Amol Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr.D.B.Thoke, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶8

DATE : JUNE 9, 2023

¶9

PER COURT:

¶10

1.We have considered the submissions on behalf of the

¶11

petitioner and the Respondents. The only relief sought by the Petitioner
is in terms of prayer clause B, which reads as under :-

¶12

"B. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any
order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to expedite proceedings initiated in pursuance
of the Notice dated 20.10.2015, as also to carry out eviction of the shop
holders and encroachers in Survey No.4017-C, Chalisgaon, Taluka :
Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon."

¶13

khs/June 2023/3828

¶14

- 2 -

¶15

2.The learned AGP informs us that a notice has now been
issued by the Tahsil Office, Chalisgaon, dated 07.06.2023 and steps for
removal of encroachments have already been initiated.

¶16

3.The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has taken
instructions and submits that this petition stands worked out.
However, he prays that the Revenue Authorities may be directed to
complete the process of removal of encroachment within a time frame
since such a drive was resorted to even in 2016 and there has been no
development thereafter inspite of the directions of this Court vide order
dated 18.08.2016 passed in WP No.4764/2016 filed by the present
Petitioner.

¶17

4.In view of the above, this petition is disposed off.
Needless to state, the Revenue Authorities shall refrain from passing on
the buck from one office to the other and shall follow the due
procedure laid down in Law for the removal of encroachment. We
caution the Revenue Authorities that if subsequently it is brought to our
notice that there has been unnecessary delay or lapses on the part of
the Respondents, we would take recourse to the Maharashtra

¶18

khs/June 2023/3828

¶19

Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay
in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005, if we are convinced that a
particular Officer is guilty of causing deliberate delay.

¶20

 ( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE,, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶21

khs/June 2023/3828

Tejas Construction and Infrastructure Private Limited through Pradip Ramrao Shelar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejas Construction and Infrastructure Private Limited through Pradip Ramrao Shelar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Shaikh Umar Shaikh Chand Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Others

Avinash Chandrakant Bahiwal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Subhash Tatyarao Lohar Vs the State of Maharashtra through He Principle Secretary

The Bank of Baroda Thr the Authorised Officer Vs the District Collector Ahmednagar

Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust Shirdi through Its Chief Executive Officer Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi through Its Chief Executive Officer Rahul Dashrath Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary