M/S. Anmol And Mane Builders And Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Director Rajendra Mane v. State Of Maharashtra And ORS

by RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR Date:

2022.04.27 17:02:15 +0530 RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4645 OF 2022 M/s. Anmol and Mane Builders and Developers Pvt.Ltd. Thr. Directors Rajendra Mane

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

...Respondents

Mr. Sanjiv Sawant for the Petitioner.

Smt. S.D.Vyas, 'B' Panel Counsel for the Respondent-State. Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo for the Respondent No.2 - (CIDCO). CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ.

DATE : 20 th APRIL, 2022 P.C. :

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-CIDCO. 2.

At the outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not press for any of the reliefs, as sought for, from prayer clauses (a) to (d). Learned Counsel confines this petition only to prayer clause (e) of this petition.

1/3

3.

By prayer clause (e), the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 to decide the petitioner's representation dated 15th March, 2022 expeditiously and within a particular time frame. He submits that the petitioner's representation is pending with the respondent No.2-CIDCO and has not been decided till date.

4.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-CIDCO does not dispute the fact that the representation is pending before the CIDCO authorities.

5.

Considering the relief sought for by the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent No.1-CIDCO to decide the petitioner's representation dated 15th March, 2022, as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Respondent No.2-CIDCO to hear the petitioner as well as contesting respondents i.e. respondent Nos.3 to 5 before passing any orders. 6.

Needless to state, that it is open for the parties including the petitioner, to place before the respondent No.2-CIDCO, all the documents on which, they propose to rely.

2/3

7.

It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the petition and as such all contentions of all parties are kept open. 8.

Needless to also state, that the petitioner is at liberty to reapply for the same reliefs as sought for in this petition i.e. prayer clauses (a) to (d), if the occasion so arises.

9.

The petition is allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms. 10.

All concerned, to act on the authenticated copy of this order. MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

3/3