Disposed¶18

Irfan Yakub Mohammad and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Government Pleader and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Jan 2025WP/9943/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Co-operative housing society; Amarante Co-op Housing Society Ltd.; temple construction on Podium Garden area; AGM 18-09-2022 without agenda; minutes to Registrar of Co-operative Societies; unauthorised/illegal construction; Panvel Municipal Corporation permission pending; undertaking by Respondent No.5; writ petition disposed without further order; Bombay High Court; WP 9943 of 2024; decided 20-02-2025.

What did the court decide?

The Court placed on record the submission of counsel for Respondent No.5, made on instructions, that no construction shall be made without obtaining permission from the Competent Authority including the Panvel Municipal Corporation. ¶17

Irfan Yakub Mohammad and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Government Pleader and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether directions should be issued to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to restrain Respondent No.5 (Amarante Co-op Housing Society Ltd.) from constructing a Temple on the Podium Garden area as illegal or unauthorized construction.

¶16

Court's answer

¶17

Ratio / Principle

In view of the submission placed on record, the Court held that no further order was required to be passed in the Writ Petition and disposed of the same.

¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 9943 of 2024 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; Coram: Alok Aradhe, CJ. and Bharati Dangre, J.; decided 20 February 2025): Members of Respondent No.5 – Amarante Co-op Housing Society Ltd. alleged that at the Annual General Meeting of 18 September 2022, without any agenda, the Society proposed construction of a Temple on the Podium Garden area, minutes being submitted to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 18 November 2022; after the members' letter of 16 February 2024, Respondent No.3 by communication dated 20 February 2024 sought approval for the construction. The Petition sought directions to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to restrain Respondent No.5 from constructing any illegal or unauthorized construction. Counsel for Respondent No.5 submitted that its application to the Panvel Municipal Corporation for permission was pending and, on instructions, undertook that no construction shall be made without permission from the Competent Authority including the Panvel Municipal Corporation; this submission was placed on record. In view thereof the Court passed no further order and disposed of the Writ Petition. The affidavit in reply tendered by counsel for Respondent No.4 was taken on record.

¶1

JPP

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 9943 OF 2024

¶4

Irfan Yakub Mohammad and Anr. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra through the Government Pleader and Ors. … Respondents

¶5

None for the Petitioners

¶6

Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo for Respondent No.4

¶7

Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Addl.G.P. with Ms. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - State

¶8

Mr. P.B. Gujar with Mr. Vivek Patil for Respondent No.5

¶9

CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ. AND BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATE : 20^th FEBRUARY 2025

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

The Petitioners are the members of Respondent No.5 – Amarante Co-op Housing Society Ltd.

¶12

According to the Petitioners, in the Annual General Meeting scheduled on 18^th September 2022 without floating any agenda of the meeting, the Society proposed to construction of a Temple on the Podium Garden area. Thereafter, on 18^th November 2022, Minutes of the Meeting were submitted to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies.

¶13

1/2

¶14

JPP 29. WP 9943.24.doc

¶15

The Petitioners, along with the other members, thereupon addressed a letter to the Society on 16^th February 2024 stating that a Temple cannot be constructed without obtaining permission from the appropriate authority. The Respondent No.3, thereupon, by a communication dated 20^th February 2024, sought approval for construction of the Temple on the Podium Garden Area in the building of the Society.

¶16

Being aggrieved, this Writ Petition has been filed in which prayer has been made seeking directions to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to restrain the Respondent No.5 from constructing any illegal or unauthorized construction.

¶17

The learned Counsel for Respondent No.5 submitted that it has made an application to the Panvel Municipal Corporationn and the application seeking permission to raise constructionn is pending. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.5 on instructions, submits that no construction shall be made without obtaining permission from the Competent Authority including the Panvel Municipal Corporation. The aforesaid submission is placed on record.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid submission, no further order is required to be passed in the Writ Petition. The same is accordingly disposed of.

¶19

The learned Counsel for Respondent No.4 has tendered an affidavit in reply, which is taken on record.

¶20

( BHARATI DANGRE, J. )

¶21

( CHIEF JUSTICE )

¶22

2/2

¶23

Digitally signed JYOTIPRAKASH by JYOTIPRAKASHPAWAR PAWAR Date: 2025.02.21 18:57:48 +0530

Irfan Yakub Mohammad and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Government Pleader and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan Yakub Mohammad and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Government Pleader and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Uday Sanjiva Kanchan vs Pfizer Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Limited

M/S. Watergrace Products Thr Prop. Chetan P Bora Thr Poa Naman C Bora vs Nashik Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.

M/S. Shaw Hotels and Consultancy Services Pvt.Ltd. Thr. Its Dir. Mrs. Pervin Ghani and Ors. vs Shri. Ankit Mukesh Parekh

Ms Brinda Chugani vs P R Landmarks LLP

Ramesh Gangaprasad Gupta vs Manoj Gangaprasad Gupta

Ramesh Gangaprasad Gupta vs Manoj Gangaprasad Gupta