Sita Vitthalrao Sapkal And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

2024:BHC-AUG:21560-DB 911wp9956-24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 911 WRIT PETITION NO. 9956 OF 2024 SITA VITTHALRAO SAPKAL AND ANOTHER

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS AND WRIT PETITION NO. 9960 OF 2024 PANKAJ ANNASAHEB JADHAV AND ANOTHER

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...

Shri R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/by Shri Pralhad D. Bachate and Shri V. D. Salunke a/w Shri M. V. Salunke, Advocates for the Petitioners in respective Petitions Shri M. M. Nerlikar, AGP for the Respondents/State Shri Sachin S Deshmukh, Advocate for the Intervenor.

CORAM

: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE : 10th September, 2024 ORDER:

1.

The 2nd Petition was not on the daily cause list. On a motion moved at 10.30, the said Petition is taken on the production Board. 2.

We have heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri R. N. Dhorde along with the learned Advocate Shri Bachate, the learned Advocate Shri V. D. Salunke along with the learned Advocate Shri Mayur Salunke, the learned AGP on behalf of the State and Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, the learned Advocate for the Intervenor.

911wp9956-24 3.

Having considered the pleadings in both the Petitions, we find that both these Petitions are filed for seeking implementation of the decision taken by the District Planning Committee (DPC). Keeping in view the time lag between the date of the decision of the DPC, which is 25.08.2024 and filing of these Petitions on 09.09.2024, we do not find that there is any reason to issue a Writ of Mandamus. Clause 2.11 of the G.R. dated 16.02.2008 issued by the Planning Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai is an inbuilt mechanism.

4.

In view of the above, both these Writ Petitions are disposed off.

5.

Pending Civil Application No.10003 of 2024, does not survive and stands disposed off.

( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) JPChavan