M/S Urmila Infrastructure Developers Thr. Partner S.D. Gavhal v. City And Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. And ORS
905-WP.15596.2023 Jvs.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 15596 OF 2023 M/s. Urmila Infrastructure } Developers } Petitioner versus City and Industrial Development } Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. } & Ors.
} Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15599 OF 2023 Chandrakala D. Gavhal } Petitioner versus City and Industrial Development } Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. } & Ors.
} Respondents Dr. Uday Warunjikar with Mr. Sumit S.
Kate for the petitioners.
Mr. G. S. Hegde, Senior Advocate i/b. Ms.
P. M. Bhansali for respondents 1 & 2 (CIDCO).
Mr.
O.
A.
Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader with Ms. R. A.
Salunkhe, AGP for State.
JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATE:
19th DECEMBER 2023 P.C.:
JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE Date: 2023.12.19 17:53:29 +0530 1.
Heard Dr. Warunjikar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Hegde, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Bhansali
905-WP.15596.2023 representing respondents 1 & 2 (CIDCO) and Mr. Chandurkar, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the State. 2.
After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to approach respondent no. 2 with a prayer to adjust the earlier deposits made by them, in the present tender process, if the petitioners apply to participate.
3.
Mr.
Hegde, learned senior counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 (CIDCO) does not have any objection to the said prayer.
4.
The writ petitions are, thus, dismissed as withdrawn. We further provide that in case the petitioners make any application as aforesaid, the same shall be considered and decided by respondent no. 2 on its own merits and in accordance with law within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date such an application is made.
5.
We make it clear that this order should not be construed to be a verdict so far as the claim of the petitioners seeking disposal of the representation pending before the State Government is concerned.
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)