Rayat Kranti Sanghatana Karad through Vice President M.Ambekari v. Chief Executive Officer Karad and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Dec 2025PIL/116/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karad Nagar Parishad building permission 21.7.2017; MRTP Act 1966 S.51(1) notice 18.6.2018 and revocation communication 26.7.2018; occupation certificate granted to Respondent No.5 bank; PIL held infructuous; recourse suggested before Competent Civil Court; matter adjourned to 5.1.2026 'For Passing Orders'; Kolhapur Circuit Bench; Rayat Kranti Sanghatana Karad v. Chief Executive Officer, Karad Nagar Parishad.

What did the court decide?

No final relief granted or refused on the date of the order. After learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to take instructions (having been unable to contact the petitioner), the Court directed the matter to stand over to 5th January, 2026 under the caption 'For Passing Orders'. ¶¶39

Rayat Kranti Sanghatana Karad through Vice President M.Ambekari vs Chief Executive Officer Karad and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue to quash the building permission dated 21.7.2017 granted by Respondent No.1 in favour of Respondent No.5, to quash the communication dated 26.7.2018 revoking action under S.51(1) of the MRTP Act, and to direct Respondent No.1 to take the notice dated 18.6.2018 to its logical end. +1 more

¶¶23

Key takeaways

The Court expressed the opinion that the cause in the Public Interest Litigation has turned infructuous, since Respondent No.5 has completed the construction and an occupation certificate has been granted, with the bank fully functional in the premises.obiter¶¶35
In view of the subsequent developments of facts, the petitioner may have to take appropriate recourse by approaching the Competent Civil Court for seeking proper relief.obiter¶¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PIL (converted from a 2019 writ petition) by Rayat Kranti Sanghatana Karad challenging the building construction permission dated 21.7.2017 granted by the Chief Executive Officer, Karad Nagar Parishad (Respondent No.1) in favour of Respondent No.5, a Bank, and the communication dated 26.7.2018 revoking action under S.51(1) of the MRTP Act, 1966; the petitioner also sought a direction to pursue the notice dated 18.6.2018 issued u/s.51(1). On 4.12.2025, Respondent No.5 informed the Court that construction was completed, an occupation certificate had been granted, and the bank was fully functional. The Division Bench (M.S. Karnik and Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ.) opined that the cause in the PIL had turned infructuous and indicated that the petitioner may have to approach the Competent Civil Court for proper relief in view of the subsequent developments. Counsel sought time to take instructions; the matter was stood over to 5th January, 2026 under the caption 'For Passing Orders'. No final orders were passed on the date of the order.

¶1

13-PIL-116-2024.doc

¶2

Shailaja

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.116 OF 2024

¶6

Rayat Kranti Sanghatana Karad through ] Vice President Mr. Musadik Ambekari ] Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

Chief Executive Officer, Karad Nagar Parishad ] Karad and others ] Respondents

¶9

Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure, for Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Amar P. Dhumal i/b Mr. Dilip Bodake a/w Mr. Saiprasad Patil and Mr. Viraj Dhumal, for Respondent No.1.

¶11

Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, A.G.P, for Respondent – State.

¶12

Mr. Kalpesh Patil, for Respondent No.5.

¶13

….. CORAM : M.S. KARNIK & AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 4^th DECEMBER, 2025. P.C:

¶15

We find that the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the

¶16

building construction permission granted on 21^st July, 2017 by respondent

¶17

No.1 in favour of respondent No.5 which is a Bank by nature.

¶18

The petition was filed in the year 2019 and was later converted into Public Interest Litigation in the year 2024.

¶19

1 of 4

¶20

SHAILAJASHRIKANT Digitally signed by SHAILAJASHRIKANT HALKUDEDate: 2025.12.09 11:38:30 HALKUDE +0530

¶21

13-PIL-116-2024.doc

¶22

Following prayers are averred by the petitioner in the present Public Interest Litigation;

¶23

“a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus be pleased to quash and set aside building permission granted on 21.7.2017 issued by Respondent No.1 in favour of Respondent No.5;

¶24

(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 26.7.2018 issued by Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.5 revoking the action under Section 51(1) of the MRTP Act, 1966;

¶25

(c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to take the notice dated 18.6.2018 issued u/s.51(1) of the MRTP Act, to its logical end;

¶26

(d) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus be pleased to direct Respondent No.1 to first get layout plan of Respondent No.4 Market Committee and then to grant building permission to Respondent No.5 as directed by the Collector, ADTP, Sarara.

¶27

(e) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the effect, operation and implementation of the impugned permission dated 21.7.2017;

¶28

(f) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the communication dated 26.7.2018 issued by Respondent No. 1;

¶29

2 of 4

¶30

13-PIL-116-2024.doc

¶31

(g) Ad-interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (e) and (f) above be granted;

¶32

h) Costs be provided for, and

¶33

(i) Such further and other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may require”.

¶34

Today, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that during the course of time, respondent No.5 has constructed the building for which the construction permission granted by respondent No.1 was impugned in the present petition. He would further submit that accordingly construction is completed and occupation certificate is also granted in favour of respondent No.5 and respondent No.5 - bank is fully functional in the said premises.

¶35

As such, presently we are of the opinion that the cause carried in the present Public Interest Litigation has turned infructuous. In view of that, we are of the expressed opinion that the petitioner may have to take appropriate recourse, that to approach the Competent Civil Court for seeking proper relief in view of the subsequent developments of facts in the matter.

¶36

Learned Counsel in the morning has sought some time to take appropriate instructions from the petitioner. Now when the matter was called out, learned Counsel would submit that he could not contact the petitioner and therefore, some time be granted to make further submissions.

¶37

3 of 4

¶38

13-PIL-116-2024.doc

¶39

Stand over to 5^th January, 2026 under the caption “For Passing Orders”.

¶40

[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]

¶41

[M.S. KARNIK, J.]

¶42

4 of 4

Rayat Kranti Sanghatana Karad through Vice President M.Ambekari v. Chief Executive Officer Karad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rayat Kranti Sanghatana Karad through Vice President M.Ambekari v. Chief Executive Officer Karad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vikas Thakare, Social Worker and Former Mayour of the City of Nagpur Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary to Governement, Revenue and Forests Deptt. and 5

Sunil Prabhat Khare Vs Reserve Bank of India, through Regional Director, R.B.I. Nagpur and Another

Harshawardhan Raibhan Jadhav Vs the Union of India and Others

Sayyed Ajar Sayyed Anwar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mr. Yashwant Dattaram Gangawane vs the State of Maharasahtra

Ramdas Dnyandeo Ghavate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Takari Tribal Communitys Welfare Association Thro. President N. G. Jadhav vs the Secretary Ministry of Tribal Development Govt.

Vicky Mahendra Sawai Vs State of Maharashtra, through the Chief Secretary, Mumbai and Another

Pooja Viki Metkari vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kapil Vinodpal Singh Choudhari vs State of Maharashtra

Bhairavi Engineers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principle Secretary and Ors.

Anantrao Guruanna Halgekar Throu. Poa Ajay R Singh vs Spl Land Acquisition Officer and Ors.

Suraj Ram Gaikwad vs Commissioner of Police Solapur

Suresh Ramchandra Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.