Disposed¶28

K.J. Builders and Developers Th. Its Partner J K Giriyolkar v. the State of Maharashtra Th. the Chief Secretary

Bombay HC10 Jan 2025WP/1749/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Time-bound disposal of pending representations; writ of mandamus; Urban Land Ceiling (ULC) – Collector and Competent Authority, Mumbai; Government Resolution dated 01.08.2019; K.J. Builders & Developers; State of Maharashtra; Bombay High Court; Writ Petition No. 1749 of 2024; order dated 10.01.2025; advocates: Bhushan Deshmukh, Ziyad Madon, Girish B. Kedia (petitioner); Mohit Jadhav, Manisha Gawade (respondents).

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3 – The Collector and Competent Authority - ULC, Mumbai, to decide the petitioner's representations as expeditiously as possible and in any event within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. ¶28

K.J. Builders and Developers Th. Its Partner J K Giriyolkar vs the State of Maharashtra Th. the Chief Secretary — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

21-WP-1749-2024.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by RUPALI RUPALI RAJESHWAKODIKAR RAJESHWAKODIKAR Date:2025.01.15 10:24:08 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1749 OF 2024

¶5

K.J. Builders & Developers Th. Its Partner J.K.Giriyolkar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Th. The Chief Secretary ...Respondent

¶6

Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh, Ziyad Madon i/b Mr. Girish B. Kedia for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Mohit Jadhav, Addl.G.P a/w Ms.Manisha Gawade, A.G.P., for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶8

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &

¶9

DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 10th JANUARY, 2025

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶12

By this petition, the only substantive relief sought by the petitioner, reads thus :

¶13

“(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction in the

1/3

Wakodikar

21-WP-1749-2024.doc

nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents to consider the Petitioners’ representations dated 09.08.2023 (Exh.J), 29.11.2023 (Exh.O); 21.01.2024 (Exh.P) and 31.01.2024 (Exh.Q) in time bound period as this Hon’ble Court may deem just, legal and proper.”

¶18

Perused the petition. The petitioner has made a

¶19

representation to the respondent No.3 – The Collector and Competent Authority - ULC, Mumbai, seeking benefit under the Government Resolution dated 1^st August, 2019. The only relief sought in the aforesaid petition is a direction to the respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner’s representations in a time-bound manner.

¶20

Admittedly, the petitioner’s representations have not been decided, till date.

¶21

The representations are made in August, 2023, November,

¶22

2023 and two representations in January, 2024.

¶23

Considering that this is the only relief sought in the

¶24

petition, we deem it appropriate without going into the merits of the

¶25

Wakodikar

¶26

21-WP-1749-2024.doc

¶27

representations, to direct the respondent No.3 – The Collector and Competent Authority - ULC, Mumbai, to decide the petitioner’s representations, as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶28

Petition is accordingly disposed of on the aforesaid terms.

¶29

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this

¶30

order.

¶31

DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶32

3/3

¶33

Wakodikar

K.J. Builders and Developers Th. Its Partner J K Giriyolkar v. the State of Maharashtra Th. the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.J. Builders and Developers Th. Its Partner J K Giriyolkar v. the State of Maharashtra Th. the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bharat Pandurang Kadam and 47 Ors. vs Mumbai Ports Authority(Formerly Known as the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai)

Ankit Bhuwalka vs Idbi Bank Limited

Hanumanth Adinarayan Palyala vs the State Bank of India

Jay Kowli vs Secretary General, Boxing Federation of India

Bharat Pandurang Kadam and 47 Ors. vs Mumbai Ports Authority(Formerly Known as the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai)

Madhu Pandit Dasa vs the Charity Commissioner