Shri Vyankatrao Bhivram Choudhari And ORS. v. M/S Garuda Amusement Park (Nagpur) Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Its Director And ORS.

2025:BHC-NAG:4158-DB 147 cao 416.25.odt..odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

C.A.O. NO.416 OF 2025 IN MCA ST. NO.8830 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1307 OF 2025 (D) Shri Vyankatrao Bhivram Choudhari and others .Vs.

M/s Garuda Amusement Park (Nagpur) Pvt. Ltd., Bandra (East), Mumbai thr. its Director and ors. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Dr. Tushar Mandlekar, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms Ritu Jog, Advocate for respondent No.3.

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 21.04.2025 1.

Heard.

2.

This is an application for review of the order dated 05.04.2025 passed in W.P. No.1307/2025.

3.

It is the contention of Mr. Mandlekar, counsel appearing for the applicants in the present review application that the applicants have been implicated as party-respondents in Writ Petition No.1307/2025. The State Government has caused indulgence by granting a stay on the project in question pursuant to the complaint of the applicants which order was subject matter of challenge in the above petition. 4.

Learned counsel for the applicants would claim that

147 cao 416.25.odt..odt the petition ought not to have been entertained by this Court as in the earlier round of litigation the original petitioners preferred Writ Petition No.14497/2023 at the Principal Seat, questioning the very same impugned order, which was dismissed as withdrawn.

5.

The fact remains that if the applicants are original complainants, it is always open for them to appear before the competent authority who has granted ad-interim stay against the original petitioner i.e. non-applicant No.1 herein. Keeping such an option open to the applicants to appear before the respondent No.3 who has passed the impugned order of stay, we see no reason to exercise review jurisdiction particularly when it is an admitted position on record that the impugned order of stay was passed by the respondent No.3 in this petition without hearing the stakeholders.

6.

The review application accordingly stands disposed of with liberty as ordered herein above. No costs. (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) manisha