Rahul Dyeing And Printing Pvt Ltd Thr Its Director v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation And ORS

Digitally signed by PRAJAKTA SAGAR VARTAK Date:

2025.03.10 09:55:19 +0530 905-WP 1198-25.DOC PRAJAKTA SAGAR VARTAK Prajakta Vartak

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1198 OF 2025 M/s. Rahul Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd.

...Petitioner

Vs.

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Ors.

...Respondents

_______ Ms. Janhavee Joshi i/b. Mr. Mohan Jadhav for the Petitioner. Ms. Shyamali Gadre with Mr. A. Kulkarni i/b. Little & Company for Respondents (MIDC).

__________

CORAM:

G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.

DATE:

06 MARCH 2025.

P.C.

1.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2.

The dispute in the present proceedings is in regard to the demand of the water charges/water bills issued to the petitioner by respondent-MIDC. We are informed that earlier on the same issue the parties were before the Court when this Court had passed an order on such petition filed by the petitioner, however, copy of such order is not annexed to the petition. Be that as it may, it appears from the record that in the year 2024 water bills are issued to the petitioner. The amounts as demanded in such bills are disputed by the petitioner. Protesting these bills, the petitioner has also made a representation. Our attention is also drawn to a letter of the MIDC 06 March 2025

905-WP 1198-25.DOC dated 28 January 2022 whereby the Executive Engineer, MIDC called upon the petitioner to attend the office along with all correspondence. 3.

Considering the nature of the issues, we are of the opinion that as the petitioner has disputed the bills as issued to the petitioner from time to time, in the year 2024, it is appropriate that the petitioner makes a detailed representation along with all supporting documents to the concerned officer of the MIDC. Let such representation be made within one week from today. On such representation, the petitioner be granted an opportunity of a hearing by the concerned officer and an appropriate decision in regard to the payment of the actual charges be taken after examining such materials and the contentions of the petitioner, in accordance with law. 4.

All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. 5.

Needless to observe that a decision be taken within one week of the petitioner submitting the representation along with necessary documents. Till the decision is taken and communicated to the petitioner, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. 6.

Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. (ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) 06 March 2025