Bombay High CourtWP/2006/2018disposed offdismissed for default

Keshav Ganesh Siddhtekkar And Another v. The Deputy Commissioner Nashik And Others

2019-03-20Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge2 pages

{1} wp 2006.18.18.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITIN NO.2006 OF 2018 Keshav s/o Ganesh Siddhtekkar & another Petitioners

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner (supply) Nashik Division, Nashik and others Respondents Mr.Y .B. Bolkar, advocate for petitioners Mr. S.R. Yadav, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 V.P. Latange, advocate for respondent Nos.4 to 6 ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JUDGE (Date : 20th March, 2019) PER COURT :- The learned advocate for respondent No.4 to 6 submits that, an alternate remedy is available to the petitioners, to prefer a Second Revision, in the light of the Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court delivered in the matter of Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani versus State of Maharashtra and others (2015 (6) Mh.L.J.915).

The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the time spent by the petitioners in this Court from 5.2.2018 may be considered as a ground for condonation of delay, if the petitioner approaches the revisional authority.

In view of the above, this petition is disposed off.

{2} wp 2006.18.18.odt Considering the above and since the petitioners have been granted ad interim protection by this Court on 15.2.2018, I deem it appropriate to continue the said relief till the application for interim relief is decided or for a period of 12 weeks from today, which ever is earlier.

As such, this petition is disposed off in view of the availability of the alternate remedy. The petitioners shall prefer their second revision within a period of four weeks from today along with an application for interim relief. The ad interim protection granted on 15.2.2018 shall continue for a further period of 12 weeks from today or till the decision on the application for interim relief, whichever is earlier. Needless to state, all the contentions of the litigating sides are kept open and especially the contention of the petitioners that 25 years delay has been condoned without reasons.

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE), JUDGE vbd