Disposed

Nayna Naresh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Aug 2024WP/992/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No. 992 of 2024, the Bombay High Court faced a preliminary objection regarding an available statutory appeal under a Government Resolution dated 16.8.2010 against the impugned order. Instead of adjudicating merits, the court granted leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file an appeal and disposed of the matter as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Leave and liberty granted to withdraw the Petition with liberty to file an Appeal before the Competent Authority.

Nayna Naresh Rathod vs State of Maharashtra — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

sbw 22-oswp-992-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 992 OF 2024

¶5

Nayna Naresh Rathod … Petitioner.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Akshay Kapadia a/w Mr. Pradeep Rane for the Petitioner. Ms. Uma Palsuledesai, AGP, for the Respondent No.1,State. Ms. Manisha Jagtap for Respondent No.2,MHADA.

¶9

Ms. S.V.Tondwalkar i/by Ms. Komal Punjabi for Respondent No.3,BMC. Mr. Abhijit Patil for Respondent No.4.

¶10

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ. DATE : 27^th November 2024.

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

At the outset, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No.2 raised a preliminary objection that, against the impugned Order dated 19^th October 2022, a statutory Appeal is maintainable under Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 16^th August, 2010. The relevant portion of the said G.R. is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:

¶13

" पह�ले ि अहपल ि

¶14

७. मुख्य अधि�कारी यांनी ना �रकत प्रमाणपत्र प्रदान केल्यानंतर समा�ान न झाल्यास, मंजूर यादीतील व्यथि त अज!दार / रहि�वाशी अ वा हिवकासक आदेश प्राप्त

¶15

1/2

¶16

SANDHYABHAGUWADHWA Digitally signedby SANDHYABHAGUWADHWADate:2024.12.0312:03:01 +0530

¶17

sbw 22-oswp-992-2024.doc

¶18

झाल्यापासून ४५ हिदवसात उपाध्यक्ष त ा मुख्य काय!कारी अधि�कारी, म्�ाडा यांचेकडे पहि�ले अहिपल दाखल करु शकतील.

¶19

दुसरे अहपल ि

¶20

८. उपाध्यक्ष त ा मुख्य काय!कारी अधि�कारी, म्�ाडा यांनी अहिपलावर पारिरत केलेल्या आदेशामुळे समा�ान न झाल्यास, भाडेकरु/रहि�वाशी अ वा हिवकासक आदेश प्राप्त झाल्यापासून हिदलेल्या हिनण!यावर ४५ हिदवसात शासनाकडे अहिपल करु शकतील. शासनाने हिदलेला हिनण!य अंधितम व हिनणा!यक असेल.”

¶21

Thus, without availing the said alternate remedy, the Petitioner

¶22

has directly approached this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

¶23

Faced with the said difficulty, learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw Petition with liberty to file an Appeal as per the G.R. dated 16^th August, 2010 before the Competent Authority.

¶24

3.1) Leave and liberty granted.

¶25

1. Disposed off as withdrawn.

¶26

1. It is needless to mention that, this Court has not adjudicated

¶27

the merits involved in the Petition and it is disposed off on the preliminary objection raised by the learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. The Competent Authority will decide the Appeal on its own merits as per the provisions of law including the law of Limitation.

¶28

(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

¶29

2/2

Nayna Naresh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nayna Naresh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sarojadevi Ramkumar Chaurasiya vs Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority

Madrassa Masjid Gausiya a Public Trust vs State of Maharashtra through Urban Development

Baba Homes Builders and Developers vs Hemant Narayan Desai and 10 Others

Shri Kesriprasad Thakurdin Jaiswar vs the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader

Sachin Purushottam Pawar vs Idfc First Bank Limited and Ors.

Manisha Narendra Deshpande and Anr. vs Chairman/Secretar Deepadarshini Chs Ltd. and Ors.