Review petitions sought reopening of detailed judgments on slum redevelopment matters by arguing reliance on the Om-Sai Darshan decision rendered them per incuriam. The Court rejected both reviews as misconceived and not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
927-ASRPW-45-2024+.DOC
Sumedh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 45 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1048 OF 2024
Abdul Aziz son of Late Ashraf Baig & Ors …Petitioners Versus Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors …Respondents
WITH
REVIEW PETITION NO. 52 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 859 OF 2024
Shamsunnisa Saeed Ahmed & Ors …Petitioners Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors …Respondents
Mr Vivek Shukla , with Fayzan Khan & Bushra Sayed, i/b Trupti Gaikar, for the Petitioners in both Review Petitions.
Mr Jagdish G Aradwad (Reddy) , for Respondents Nos 1 to 3-AGRC & SRA in both Review Petitions.
Mr Aditya Miskita, with Neha Mehta, Aayushi Gohil, Umair Merchant & Ria Sawant, for MT Miskita & Co, for Respondent No 4- Budhpur Buildcon Pvt Ltd in both Review Petitions.
Mr Saurabh Utangale, for Respondent No 5-MHADA in both Review Petitions.
SUMEDH NAMDEO SONAWANE
Digitally signed by SUMEDH NAMDEO SONAWANE Date: 2024.04.23 10:55:12 +0530
Page 1 of 3 22nd April 2024
927-ASRPW-45-2024+.DOC
CORAM G.S. Patel & Kamal Khata, JJ. DATED: 22nd April 2024
PC:-
1. Review is sought of our order and judgment dated 23rd February 2024. This is pressed on the footing that the judgment is per incuriam . What is being attempted is now a reopening of the case on merits. The judgment is a detailed 68-page reasoned judgment that does not seem to have been set aside in appeal. In fact, there is a long history noted. In paragraph 86 of the judgment, our attention was drawn to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in OmSai Darshan CHSL (Proposed) v State of Maharashtra.1 We followed that. It is now sought to be argued in a Review Petition that the decision in Om-Sai Darshan (H.L. Gokhale and Abhay S Oak JJ as they then were) is per incuriam and therefore our judgment is also per incuriam .
2. The entire Review Petition is fundamentally misconceived and not maintainable. Just the mere fact that a judgment refers to a precedent and a submission is to be made on the precedent cited does not make the judgment in question susceptible to Review. The Petitioners seem to forget that we did not hold as we did on 23rd February 2024 only because of the decision in Om-Sai Darshan. To put it differently, even without the reference to the Om-Sai Darshan precedent our judgment would have been the same. Besides the Review Petition now attempt a substantive challenge on merits.
1 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 480: (2007) 1 Bom Cr 476.
Page 2 of 3 22nd April 2024
927-ASRPW-45-2024+.DOC
3. The Review Petition is entirely without merit. It is rejected. For the reasons set out above, Review Petition No 52 of 2024 is also rejected.
4. We have declined to note at copious length every submission made by learned Advocate for the Review Petitioners. What we have held is enough for a disposal. We refuse to take those written submissions on record. It is not the law that every single submission made by an Advocate must be noted and dealt with when the Petition on the matter at hand can be disposed of on the central aspect of it.
(Kamal Khata, J)
(G. S. Patel, J)
Page 3 of 3 22nd April 2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the earlier judgment of 23rd February 2024 was per incuriam because it relied on the Om-Sai Darshan precedent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
OmSai Darshan CHSL (Proposed) v State of MaharashtraFollowed¶1
2006 SCC OnLine Bom 480: (2007) 1 Bom Cr 476 · Who else cites this
Abdul Aziz son of Late Ashraf Baig & Ors
Apex Grievance Redressal Committee
Shamsunnisa Saeed Ahmed & Ors
State of Maharashtra
Budhpur Buildcon Pvt Ltd
MHADA
G.S. Patel
Kamal Khata
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
