← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1460/2014disposed off

Prakash Dhura Sonawane v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary Government Of Maharashtra Department Of Housing 5 Or

2016-04-27Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi,Hon'Ble Shri Justice S.C. Dharmadhikari2 pages

suresh 915-WP-1460.2014.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1460 OF 2014 Prakash Dhura Sonawane .... Petitioner Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

.... Respondents Ms Prabha Uday Badadare for the Petitioner.

Mr. J.S. Saluja, AGP, for the Respondent-State. Ms Neha Bhide for the Respondent No.2.

Mr. S.P. Thorat for the Respondent No.3.

Mr. Omkar Kulkarni for the Respondent No.4.

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : APRIL 27, 2016 P.C:

1.

Let the petitioner file an affidavit proving service and annexing therewith the documents produced today. 2.

It is stated that on private notice the respondent Nos.5 and 6 are not appearing. They have been duly served with such private notice and an acknowledgement is produced for our perusal. We have noted that there is an acknowledgement by the respondent No.5 through its Manager/Accountant and there is a signature of the respondent No.6.

suresh 915-WP-1460.2014.doc 3.

Let the affidavit proving such service be filed within one week from today.

4.

After having heard the petitioner's Advocate and finding that none of the rights of either the petitioner or the contesting respondents are affected, we can dispose of this petition.

5.

Mr. Thorat, appearing on behalf of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, states, on instructions, that the Secretary of the said Authority shall hear the petitioner as well as the respondent No.6 on the point of eligibility and will thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. 6.

This order is passed since the Slum Rehabilitation Authority has indicated its readiness and willingness to examine the claim of the petitioner. We clarify that we have expressed no opinion on either the claim of the petitioner or that of the respondent No.6. All contentions in relation thereto are kept open.

7.

The writ petition is disposed of.

(DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR JOSHI, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)