← Library
Bombay High CourtCAW/2969/2017disposed off

Shri. Shrikant Dinanath Gaikwad v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR.

2018-04-13Hon'Ble Shri Justice G.S. Patel,Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.S. Oka2 pages

caw-2969.17.odt pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2969 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10825 OF 2015 Shri. Shrikant Dinanath Gaikwad ... Applicant Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

... Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2970 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10824 OF 2015 Shri. Bharat Hiralal Chavda ... Applicant Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

... Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2971 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10823 OF 2015 Shri. Nilesh Nilkanth More ... Applicant Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

... Respondents Mr. Rahul Kamerkar for the Applicants in all applications. Mrs. R.A. Salunkhe, AGP for the Respondent No.1 in all applications. Mr. Gopal Krishna Shivaram Hegde and C.M. Lokesh for Respondent No.2 in all applications.

CORAM : A.S. OKA & G.S. PATEL, JJ.

DATE :

13rd APRIL, 2018 [In Chamber at 2.40 pm]

caw-2969.17.odt P.C.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. These applications seek a direction against the first respondent City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (for short "CIDCO") not to demolish the building subject matter of these applications as the applicants have applied for regularisation of the construction of the buildings. Today, the learned counsel appearing for CIDCO has placed on record a communication dated 12th April, 2018 by which the applications for regularisation made by the applicants in these applications have been rejected for the reasons recorded therein. The letters are taken on record and marked 'L1' for identification. Therefore, nothing survives in these applications. The remedy of the applicants will be to challenge the order of rejection in accordance with law.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants seeks continuation of the ad-interim relief which is operating till today to enable the applicants to take steps for challenging the orders. The applications are disposed of. We direct that ad-interim relief which is operative till today is extended by a period of six weeks from today. We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on merits of the reasons recorded for rejecting the applications for regularisation.

(G.S. PATEL, J) (A.S. OKA, J)