← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/10532/2023disposed off

Yuvraj Yashwantrao Sonawane v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its District Collector And Others

2023-08-24Hon'Ble The Chief Justice,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Arun R. Pedneker3 pages

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 921 WRIT PETITION NO.10532 OF 2023 Yuvraj s/o Yashwantrao Sonawane, Age 68 years, Occ.Business, R/o Plot No.144, Jaihind Co-operative Housing Society, Deopur, Dhule District Dhule.

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra Through its District Collector, Dhule, District Dhule.

And Other 6.

...Respondents

......

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. S. R. Patil AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. P. S. Patil ......

CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ.

& ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2023.

P.C. :

1.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. From the perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that there exists some private dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.7. In these circumstances, the petitioner will be better advised to invoke the jurisdiction of ordinary Civil Court for redressal of his grievances.

-22.

At this juncture, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw writ petition with liberty to take recourse of any other legal remedy which may be available for him under law including the remedy of institution of a suit.

3.

In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

4.

We also observe that in case the petitioner takes recourse of any other legal remedy, the Court/ authority concerned shall expedite said proceeding and conclude the same as early as possible.

5.

We also provide that in case petitioner institutes any suit, with appropriate prayers, before a Court of competent civil jurisdiction and makes an application seeking some interim injunction etc., the same shall also be expedited and decided by the Court concerned, strictly in accordance with law.

-36.

We may make it clear that we have not expressed any views about the merits of the claim of the respective parties.

(ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) vjg/-