Bombay High CourtWP/5172/2015dispossed offdismiss for default

Maharshi Karve Stree Shikshan Sanstha Through Its Chairman, Nagpur v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Urban Development Deptt., Mumbai And 2 Others

2016-02-29Hon'Ble Shri Justice B. P. Dharmadhikari,Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.M. Deshpande2 pages

wp5172.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5172 OF 2015 Maharshi Karve Stree Shikshan Sanstha, thr its Chairman, Nargundkar Layout, Deonagar, Nagpur ..vs..

The State of Maharashtra, thr its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors ....................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ....................................................................................................................................................... Shri Anand Parchure, counsel for the Petitioner. Shri S.M. Puranik, counsel for R-2.

Shri V.P. Maldhure, AGP for R-1 to 3.

CORAM

: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATED : FEBRUARY 29, 2016.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Shri S.M. Puranik, and learned AGP for respondent No.1 and 3 Shri V.P. Maldhure. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Anand Parchure submits that though respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit to redress the grievance of the petitioner, as time limit for initiation and its completion has not been specified, this Court should ask respondent No.2 to expedite the process. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 Shri S.M. .....2/-

wp5172.15 Puranik submits that exercise needs to be completed in terms of Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and hence, after issuing advertisement inviting objections necessary steps will be required to be taken. He, therefore, opposes any imposition of time ceiling.

Learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 3 Shri V.P. Maldhure states that respondent No.1 can look into the grievance only after the proposal for minor modification is received by it.

We have perused paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the reply-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2.

Without observing anything on merits of the controversy, we direct respondent No.2 to attempt to complete the formalities expeditiously. With these directions and keeping all contentions open, we dispose of the petition. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE !! BRW !!

...../-