← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/14593/2022disposed off

Institute For Technology And Management Trust v. City And Industrial Development Corporation Of Maharashtra Ltd. And ANR

2022-11-30Hon'Ble Shri Justice S.V. Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Justice Shri Arif S. Doctor2 pages

Digitally signed by MUGDHA M PARANJAPE Date:

2022.12.02 19:52:40 +0530 MUGDHA M PARANJAPE 1 17-WP 14593-22.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.14593 OF 2022 Institute for Technology & Management Trust ... Petitioner Vs.

City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited & Anr.

... Respondents ------- Mr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Rushabh Seth a/w Mr. Suraj Iyer, Mr. Mani Thevar i/by Ganesh & Company for the Petitioner. Mr. G. S. Hegde a/w Ms. P. B. Bhansali for Respondent No.1-CIDCO. Mr. Vijay Thorat, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Bhushan Mahadik, Ms. Nikita Pawar, Mr. Sandeep Magre, Ms. Aparna Sharan h/f Mahadik Associates for Respondent No.2.

-------

CORAM

:

S.V. GANGAPURWALA & ARIF S. DOCTOR, JJ.

DATED :

30TH NOVEMBER 2022 P.C. :

1.

We have heard Mr. Milind Sathe, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Hegde, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Thorat, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2.

Mr. Sathe, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner submits that as the representation is made by the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 be directed to decide the same.

Mugdha

2 17-WP 14593-22.doc 3.

Mr. Thorat, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No.2 submits that the representation made by the Petitioner ought not to be considered by Respondent No.1 as it is the Respondent No.2 who is licensee of Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.1 has terminated the license.

4.

Be that as it may. As the representation is made before the Respondent No.1, Respondent No.1 may take decision upon the representation of the Petitioner dated 10th August 2022 on its own merits and in accordance with the law after hearing the Petitioner and Respondent No.2. The Petitioner and Respondent No.2 are at liberty to file the documents with Respondent No.1, if they so desire. 5.

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. (ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) Mugdha