Disposed

Zuber Ahamed v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Jan 2023WP/4904/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Several writ petitions challenged the arbitrary cancellation of plot allotment tenders by CIDCO without reasons. The High Court held that petitioners have an internal remedy and directed them to file representations with the Managing Director within a week.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file representations with Managing Director within one week; proceedings on allotment stayed.

Zuber Ahamed Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Urban Development Dept. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

902-WP-4902-2022 +

¶2

Pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4902 OF 2022 Mukesh Himmatram Choudhary .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4904 OF 2022 Zuber Ahamed .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4907 OF 2022 Vinod Babulal Choudhary .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4919 OF 2022 Anand Thombre .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4921 OF 2022

¶5

Sachin Ramdas Deshmukh .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4916 OF 2022 M/s. Wandhekar and Company .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

¶7

902-WP-4902-2022 +

¶8

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4912 OF 2022

¶9

Raosaheb Bhagaji Ganjave .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶10

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4924 OF 2022

¶11

Gangasagar M Shewale .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶12

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4925 OF 2022

¶13

Zagade Rupali Gajanan .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶14

WITH

¶15

WRIT PETITION NO. 4922 OF 2022

¶16

Harishchandra Madhukar Sawant .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶17

WITH

¶18

WRIT PETITION NO. 4918 OF 2022

¶19

Mahadeo Bajirao Kamble .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶20

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 925 OF 2022

¶21

Jyoti Zumbar Gite .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶22

¶23

902-WP-4902-2022 +

¶24

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 926 OF 2022

¶25

Vikas Adinath Andhale .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶26

Ms. Rachna Bhanushali i/by ACE Legal for petitioners in all WPs.

¶27

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for State in all WPs.

¶28

Mr. Nitin Gangal a/w Mr. Ashok Kadam and Ms. Prerna Shukla for CIDCO in all WPs.

¶29

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, ACTING CJ. & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶30

DATE: JANUARY 5, 2023

¶31

P.C.:

¶32

1. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners had applied for the plot pursuant to the advertisement. The petitioners have deposited EMD. For four months, EMD was lying with the respondents/CIDCO. Abruptly, the tenders are cancelled without assigning reasons. The same is arbitrary. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents/CIDCO submits that even otherwise, the petitioners have remedy before the Managing Director/Competent Authority of CIDCO. The petitioners can avail remedy. The learned counsel for the respondents/CIDCO also disputes the contention of the petitioners.

¶33

3. In view of the fact that the petitioners have remedy before the Managing Director/Competent Authority of CIDCO, as contended by learned counsel for CIDCO, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the contentions of the parties, those are kept open.

¶34

¶35

902-WP-4902-2022 +

¶36

4. The petitioners may file representations/applications with the Managing Director/Competent Authority, within a period of one week from today. If such representations/applications are filed within one week from today, the Managing Director/Competent Authority shall consider the said representations/applications and take decision accordingly on its own merits and according to law/policy, preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of the representations/applications. The petitioners may represent themselves before the Managing Director/Competent Authority.

¶37

5. Till the decision is taken by the Managing Director/Competent Authority, further proceedings regarding allotment of writ land may not be undertaken. Depending upon the decision taken by the Managing Director/Competent Authority, further steps be undertaken.

¶38

6. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petitions are disposed of.

¶39

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶40

Digitally signed by PRAVIN PRAVIN DASHARATH DASHARATH PANDIT PANDIT Date: 2023.01.05 17:26:57 +0530

¶41

Zuber Ahamed v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zuber Ahamed v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Urban Development Dept. 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

Prism Johnson Limited through Corporate Office at Kalina, Santacruz Vs Union of India through Ministry of Forest and Climate Change and Ors.

Sushil Trimbkrao Morale Vs the Sub-Divisional Officer Cum Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Ors.

Rajashri Rajgonda Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Cdr. Ashok G. Gandhi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Nitin Pandurang Shejwal Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Amit Harishchandra Daphal Vs the Superintendent of Police Raigad and Anr.