M/S Nvh India Auto Parts Pvt Ltd. v. The Urban Development Department State Of Maharashtra Thro. Tis Principal Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

by GAYATRI RAJENDRA SHIMPI Date: 2025.12.08 20:24:08 +0530 GAYATRI RAJENDRA SHIMPI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 38929 OF 2025 M/s. NVH India Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd & Ors.

... Petitioners

Versus

The Urban Development Department State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary & Ors.

... Respondents **** Mr. Girish Godbole i/b Mr. Chetan Nagare a/w Mr. Dhanjay T. Kate, Advocates for the Petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo, Advocate for Respondent No.2 - PMRDA. Mr. P. P. Kakade Addl. GP a/w Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP for Respondent - State.

**** CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE : 8th DECEMBER, 2025 P.C. :

1.

This matter was filed today by the Petitioners' Company. The learned Senior Advocate, Shri Girish Godbole, moved a circulation praecipe at 11 am. We granted circulation on the Supplementary Board for tomorrow.

2.

However, at 3.00 pm, Shri Godbole once again appeared before us and produced photographs indicating that the bulldozers of

PMRDA are in front of the Petitioners' factory, which is a core establishment indulging in manufacturing of various parts/spares in the automobile sector. The bulldozers have come for demolishing the factory.

3.

Hence, we have taken this Petition on the production board today.

4.

The learned Advocate Shri Sakhadeo submits that he has received telephonic instructions and further submits that there are several irregularities committed by the Petitioners factory. He further submits that there are several portions of the factory which have been illegally erected and need to be demolished.

5.

The learned Senior Advocate Shri Godbole admits on instructions that there are few deficiencies and deviations. If pointed out eventually, the factory would take remedial actions, notwithstanding that an application for regularization / retention has been tendered to the PMRDA. Shri Sakhadeo submits that he will take instructions on the same.

6.

Considering the peculiar facts and the urgency involved, in order to enable Shri Sakhadeo to take proper instructions, we are listing this Petition on 10th December, 2025 on the 'Urgent Supplementary Board'.

7.

Until then, the PMRDA would not demolish any portion of the factory or its protective compound wall. We also direct the company to keep a Demand Draft of Rs.50 lakhs ready to be shown to the Court on 10th December, 2025 which would be utilised towards the liability of the Petitioner Company vis-a-vis the PMRDA.

8.

We request the learned Advocate for the PMRDA to communicate this order to his client.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)