Mamta Aarav Tak v. The Addl District Collector And ORS

NISHA SANDEEP CHITNIS NISHA SANDEEP CHITNIS Date: 2025.11.15 12:12:26 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.15351 OF 2025 Mamta Aarav Tak

...Petitioner

Versus

The Addl. District Collector, Thane and Ors.

...Respondents

Mr. Maruti Mhavarkar for the Petitioner.

Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl.G.P. a/w Ms. M. S. Bane, A.G.P. for the Respondent No.1-State.

Mr. Vishal Salvi a/w Mr. Tejas P. Pawar, Mr. Shubham Pawar and Ms. Suchitra Kamble for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 14th NOVEMBER 2025 P.C. :

1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the order dated 23rd September 2025 passed by the respondent No.1- Addl. District Collector, Thane, in an Appeal bearing No.GRIH/K-1/TE.6/Senior Citizen/Kavi-E-4811574/SR-1/2025. 1/3

3.

It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had filed a similar petition being Civil Writ Petition No.13512 of 2025 seeking the very same relief. This Court (Coram: N.J. Jamadar, J.) on 14th October 2025 passed the following order in the said writ petition:- "1.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the petition. 3.

The learned Counsel, however, submits that the petitioner be provided one month's time to vacate the subject premises.

4.

The petition stands disposed as withdrawn.

5.

The statement made on behalf of the petitioner that, the petitioner will vacate the premises, within a period of one month, is recorded.

6.

The petitioner shall vacate the premises on or before 14th November, 2025.

7.

In the meanwhile, the execution and operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed.

8.

In the event, the petitioner does not vacate the premises on or before 14th November, 2025, the Authorities shall be at liberty to execute the impugned order in accordance with law."

2/3

4.

Despite the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the very same order which was challenged before the learned Single Judge. We find this to be gross abuse of the process of the Court. The same also amounts to forum shopping, which cannot be countenanced. The petitioner was duty bound to abide by the statement made by her before the learned Single Judge on 14th October 2025, pursuant to which the aforesaid order was passed.

5.

The petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed and is accordingly disposed of.

SANDESH D. PATIL, J.

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

3/3