The State Of Maharashtra Through Director Of Town Planning v. Shri Ravindra Pandurang Bansod And ORS

WP. 7834-16 VPH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 7834 OF 2016 The State of Maharashtra, through the Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune ...

Petitioner Vs.

Ravindra Pandurang Bansod & Ors.

...

Respondents *** Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for the Petitioner.

Mr. Sagar Mane i/b Bhushan A. Bandiwadekar, for the Respondents. *** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & M. S. SONAK, JJ.

DATE : AUGUST 8, 2016 PC.

.

A preliminary objection is raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents regarding maintainability of the present petition on the ground of an inordinate delay, caused in filing the petition. The impugned order is dated 16th April, 2013 and the present petition is filed on 7th June, 2016. There is almost delay of more than three years in filing the present petition. In paragraph 6 of the petition, it is stated that though the order dated 16th April, 2013 was received by on them on 15th May, 2013, it was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee on 7.8.2013. The Committee 1 / 2

WP. 7834-16 thereafter referred the matter to the Urban Development Department. The Urban Development Department sought the opinion from the Finance Department, and the Law & Judiciary Department, Mantralaya Mumbai. It is further submitted that the Finance Department through their note dated 21.2.2015 informed the Petitioner to file the appeal in this Court against the impugned order. In the meantime the Presenting Officer, M. A.T. Mumbai by a letter 1.1.2016 gave his opinion to file present writ petition. The Law and Judiciary Department vide its letter dated 4.2.2016 gave an opinion that this is a fit case to file the petition in this Court. Thereafter, on 7th June, 2016 this petition was filed. In our view, there is no explanation for the gross delay caused in filing the petition.

It is merely stated that the file travelled from one department to another department. No explanation is given why it took long time to finally file the petition, after three years. We are not satisfied with the explanation for gross delay in filing the petition. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed on this ground alone.

Sd/- Sd/- [M. S. SONAK, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.] Vinayak Halemath 2 / 2