Suresh S/O Babulal Bajaj v. Union Of India Thr. Secretary, Ministry Of Railway, New Delhi And Another

2024:BHC-NAG:10082-DB

01. CAW 23261 of 2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO.2361/2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4712/2023 (D) Mukund s/o Kamlakar Bhore ...Versus...

Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001 and another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO.2363/2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3513/2023 (D) Suresh s/o Babulal Bajaj ...Versus...

Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001 and another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO.2362/2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4199/2023 (D) Sunil s/o Wadhuram Arya ...Versus...

Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001 and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ - Mr. A.M. Tirukh, Advocate for applicants Mr. Nandesh Deshpande, DSGI for respondents CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ.

DATE : 06/09/2024

01. CAW 23261 of 2024.odt 1.

The applications seek modification of the order dated 12/08/2024 on the ground that three months' more time is required for vacating the stalls.

2.

Mr. Deshpande, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents submits that contract agreements have already been entered with the successful auction purchasers, in pursuance to which, they have to be placed in possession of the stalls, on various dates commencing from 16/09/2024. He, therefore, submits that since the applicants had not participated in the auction process and the possession has to be delivered in terms of the agreements, the time cannot be granted.

3.

Since the contracts have already been entered into by the respondents with the successful auction bidders, in pursuance to which possession has to be handed over to them, we do not see any reason to extend the time. The civil applications are, therefore, rejected. No order as to costs. (M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) Wadkar