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

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

It is submitted that after hearing all the parties, this Court observed that the petition could be disposed of in the above terms. It is a matter of record that on 5^th January 2026, the matter was again taken up before this Court, and the following order came to be passed:

¶23

1.Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks time to amend the petitioner. Amendment to be carried out within a period of four weeks form today. 2.Stand over to 02.02.2026.

¶24

Today, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that

¶25

on the earlier occasion some other Advocates had addressed the Court on behalf of the petitioner, and accordingly the said order

2 of 4

adn

14-PIL-116-2024.doc

came to be passed. Its apparent that amendment is not still carried out in the petition.

¶30

The learned Advocates for the respective parties fairly submit that none of them could point out the order dated 4th December 2025 to this Court when the order dated 5th January 2026 was passed. As such, the order dated 5th January 2026 came to be passed without considering the observations made in paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the order dated 4th December 2025.

¶31

We note that the petitioner has claimed the following relief in the petition:

¶32

(a) This Hon’ble court be pleased to issue of 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;

¶33

The petition challenges the construction permission dated 21st July 2017 issued by Respondent No.1 in favour of Respondent No.5. During the pendency of the petition, it is a matter of record that Mr. Vijay Patil, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of Respondent No.4, and Mr. Kalpesh Patil, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.5, have placed on record the full

3 of 4

adn

14-PIL-116-2024.doc

occupancy certificate issued by the Karad Municipal Council on 26th March 2024, thereby indicating that the construction pursuant to the said permission has reached its logical end and that the full occupancy certificate has been issued by the competent authority in accordance with law.

¶38

Mr. Patil, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents, further submits that the bank is fully functional at the said site. As such, the matter has become infructuous. The full occupancy certificate dated 26th March 2024 is taken on record and marked “X” for identification.

¶39

In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the petition has turned infructuous insofar as the reliefs sought therein are concerned. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has not carried out the amendment for which time was sought till date.

¶40

In view thereof, the Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of as infructuous.

¶41

[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] [ R.G. AVACHAT J.]

¶42

4 of 4

¶43

adn

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?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dinesh S/O. Sheshrao Thakre and Another vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi and Ors.

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

Lalchand Avachit Patil vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Others

Imran Khan and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Girdharilal S/O. Laxmandas Harwani Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Santosh Tursiram Chute and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. District Collector, Gondia and Rehabilitation Officer

Prakruti Foundation, Thr. Its President, Deepak Bharatsingh Dixit vs Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi and Others

Mozam Ali Mir vs the State Election Commissioner

Vijaysinh Mohite Patil Junior College Thr. Principal Sushma W/O Ganesh Neel vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Secretary and Anr.

Dnayandeep Junior College, Nandore Thr. Principal vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Secretary and Anr.

Vikas Vidyalaya and Junior College Thr Its Principal vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Abc Thr. Father Xyz vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary Public Health and Family Welfare and Anr.

Pradeep Shivaji Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Maruti Shivputra Dhab vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.