Disposed

Ganesh S/O Shriram Barbade and Another v. Chief Executive Officer, M.I.D.C., Andheri (East), Industrial Dept. Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC21 Mar 2024WP/1997/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners approached the court for direction to allot commercial plots. Finding the representation pending, the court directed the respondents to decide it within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation within 12 weeks from the date of order.

What the court decided

Ganesh S/O Shriram Barbade and Another Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:3587-DB

¶2

903-WP-1997-2018.odt 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1997 of 2018

¶5

Ganesh S/o Shriram Barbade and another. vs.

¶6

Chief Executive Officer, MIDC, Andheri (East), Mumbai, and others.

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶8

Shri Manish Shukla, Advocate h/f Shri R.V.Gahilot, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri Gaurang Bhake, Advocate h/f Shri Ashish Chavare, Advocate for respondent no.3.

¶9

Shri S.M.Ghodeswar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.4.

¶10

CORAM :- NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE :- 21^st MARCH, 2024.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

The petitioners contended that on 28.02.2015 and 27.11.2014 online application forms along with the requisite fee were submitted on the website of respondent-MIDC for allotment of commercial plots for business purposes under the Scheme of the respondent-MIDC. Thereafter the petitioners submitted documents on 08.05.2015 as asked by the respondent-MIDC.

¶13

On 09.03.2016 the petitioners made a written representation to the regional office of the respondent MIDC regarding an update on the status of applications for allotment of plots. On 27.07.2016 reply was received by the petitioners, whereby they informed that the application of the petitioners had already been forwarded to the main office, in Mumbai. Thereafter, they moved representation to the Collector on 03.04.2017. In turn, on 18.03.2017 the Collector addressed a letter to the Regional Manager, MIDC, Amravati to look into the matter and proceed according to law. Since the inaction of the respondents, the petitioners issued legal notice to the respondents.

¶14

That being so, it seems that the petitioners’ representation is still pending with the respondents.

¶15

903-WP-1997-2018.odt 2

¶16

In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition, thereby directing respondents to consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of 12 weeks from today. Decision be communicated to the petitioners.

¶17

With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶18

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶19

Andurkar.

Ganesh S/O Shriram Barbade and Another v. Chief Executive Officer, M.I.D.C., Andheri (East), Industrial Dept. Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Ganesh S/O Shriram Barbade and Another v. Chief Executive Officer, M.I.D.C., Andheri (East), Industrial Dept. Mumbai and Others

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

Antyodaya Swyam Rojgar Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit through Manager Vijay Jiwanlal Mogre Vs the State of Maharashtra, Ministry of Urban Development, Mumbai and Others

Pundlikrao S/O. Banaji Mapari and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Forest and Revenue Mumbai and Ors.

Sonali W/O Liladhar Sonavane and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mumbai and Another

Shaikh Zameer Shaikh Ganibai Vs the District Magistrate and Collector, Washim and Others

Kiran Madhukar Lanjewar and Others vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Urban Development, Mumbai and Ors.

Vivek Shikshan Sanstha, through Its Secretary, Shri V.S. Dandale, Amravati and 2 Others Vs Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Amravati