All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 4: VISHWANATH SATYANARAYANA SHERLA Digitally signed by VISHWANATH SATYANARAYANA SHERLA Date: 2021.09.30 16:08:34 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2260 OF 2021 Chandrakant Dattatray Rajkuvar … Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra … Respondent Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP, for Respondent – State CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & N.J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATED: SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 P.C.: 1. Issue notice to the Respondent, returnable on 20th October, 2021. 2. The learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent – State. 3. In the meantime, the High Court Legal Services Committee to appoint an advocate from the legal aid panel to represent the petitioner, where the petition has been received directly through Jail. 4. The learned advocate appointed to represent the petitioner through legal aid panel shall ensure that memo of petition is prepared and filed in the Registry after serving the copy of the same to the Public Prosecutor, before the next date. 5. List on 20th October, 2021. (N.J. JAMADAR, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2260 OF 2021 Chandrakant Dattatray Rajkuvar PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NITIN JAMDAR & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, JJ DATE : 20th October, 2021 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 25/11/2021. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2260 OF 2021 Chandrakant Dattatray Rajkuvar … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Ajinkya Udane i/b. Niranjan Bhavke, appointed through Legal Aid for the Petitioner Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent - State CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 18 NOVEMBER 2021 JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR Digitally signed by JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR Date: 2021.11.24 12:17:57 +0530 P.C. :- By this Petition the Petitioner is seeking Emergency (Covid-19) Parole. By order dated 19 September 2020 the request is rejected by the Respondent – authority. During the pendency of the Petition, another application was made by the Petitioner which is rejected by order dated 6 May 2021 which is placed on record. The reason given for rejection is that when the Petitioner was released on parole on 7 March 2013, he did not return within the period stipulated and overstayed for 2193 days and had to be arrested and brought back to the jail. If in view of this conduct of the Petitioner, the authority is of the opinion that the Petitioner will not be available if he released on emergency parole, the opinion cannot be considered to be unjustified. The exercise of discretion by the Respondents is not arbitrary or perverse. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. NITIN JAMDAR, J.

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 1/1 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2273 OF 2021 … Mr.Ashok Rajaram Yadav ...Petitioner v/s. Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Siddharth Samantaray i/b Dimple Tejani for the Petitioner. Mr.Ashutosh Mishra for Respondent No.1. Mr.Zariv Bharucha a/w Rishi Thakur and Mr.Umang Thakur for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. … CORAM : A.A. SAYED & MADHAV JAMDAR, JJ. DATED : 29 JUNE 2021 (THROUGH V.C.) P.C.: Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 states that secured asset which is the subject matter of the present Writ Petition has been sold in a subsequent auction sale, which was conducted on 28-06- 2021. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the Petition, which is filed by the highest bidder in an earlier auction sale and seeking time to deposit the balance amount of consideration in respect of the earlier auction sale. The Petition is dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. All contentions are kept open. (MADHAV JAMDAR,J.) (A.A.SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5538 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr.Sagar Kasar, for the petitioners. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 18/08/2009 PC: When the petition was called out, the learned counsel for the petitioners was not in a position to argue the petition. Stand over to 29.9.09. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5538 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Sagar Kasar, for the petitioners. Mr Prakash M. for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 10/11/2009 PC: Mr.Kasar, learned Advocate, submits that he has instructions to appear for the sole respondent. Hence, service is complete. The petition to come up for admission on 1.12.09. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 15: MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5538 OF 2009 Shashikant B. Kamble & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. The Bharat Cooperative Bank Ltd. ...Respondents Mr.S.K.Shinde i/b. Mr. Sagar Kasar, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr.Prakash Mulky i/b. Gopal C. Poojary & Co. Advocate for the Respondents CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 20TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. : Heard both sides. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The impugned orders relate to refusal of condonation of delay in filing an application for setting aside the Exparte Award passed by the Cooperative Court on 29th February 2008. The application has been filed since 10th October 2008. The delay was of 193 days. The case for condonation of delay was that in view of the Writ Petition filed concerning the Bank's powers under Multi State Cooperative Bank, the dispute was adjourned sine die. After the decision was rendered the Dispute was taken on board for hearing. At that time no notice was issued upon the Petitioners. They did not know of the Award passed. Hence, the application. Their case is that the case has been adjourned sine die and is reflected in the noting dated 24th October 2002 of the learned Cooperative Court, Mumbai. Though a date is mentioned against the noting it shows that the case was adjourned sine die. The fact remains that the substance of the noting shows that it was indeed adjourned sine die. It would have been prudent for the Bank to issue notice upon the Petitioners when the dispute reached hearing. The Petitioners were not represented by Advocates. Hence no Advocate could appear or be informed. Consequently, the duty of the Court as well as the Disputant would be doubled. The fact remains that an Exparte decree was passed which is open to challenge. The challenge is not seen to be completely devoid of merits. The Petitioners would be required to be heard on merits. The cause shown is justifiable. Hence both the orders of the Cooperative Court and the Cooperative Appellate Court which refused to condone the delay are required to be interfered with. Both the orders are set aside. The dispute shall be heard on merits. The Petitioners shall forthwith file their written statement, give inspection of the documents, produce copies of their documents and get themselves ready for trial. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5380 OF 2006 Jayprakash Kalicharan ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors., ....Respondent Shri.Amogh Singh i/by Anil D.yadav For Petitioner Shri A.R.Metkari, AGP for State. CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J DATE : 29th November, 2016 P.C. : To be placed on the Final Hearing Board in the week commencing from 05.12.2016. To be kept a/w W.P.Nos.7975/2006 and 5393/2006. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5380 OF 2006 Jayprakash Kalicharan ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors., ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7975 OF 2006 Shaileshkumar Radheshyam Dubey ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5393 OF 2006 Shivshyam Vijaynarayan Singh ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent None for Petitioner None for Respondent CORAM : RAJESH G. KETKAR, J DATE : 16th June, 2017 P.C. : None for Petitioners/Respondent,matter to be placed in the week commencing from 10/07/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5380 OF 2006 Jayprakash Kalicharan ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors., ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7975 OF 2006 Shaileshkumar Radheshyam Dubey ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5393 OF 2006 Shivshyam Vijaynarayan Singh ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent Adv. Anil K.Singh i.b. ADV.Anil D.yadav For Petitioner Ms.kumud A. Bhatia For R.no.1 ( V.p. Filed) Government Pleader For R.no.3 For Respondent CORAM : RAJESH G. KETKAR, J DATE : 13th July, 2017 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the petitioners, Stand over to 20/07/2017 as a last chance. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5380 OF 2006 Jayprakash Kalicharan ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors., ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7975 OF 2006 Shaileshkumar Radheshyam Dubey ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5393 OF 2006 Shivshyam Vijaynarayan Singh ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : RAJESH G. KETKAR, J DATE : 20th July, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for 10/08/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5380 OF 2006 Jayprakash Kalicharan ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors., ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7975 OF 2006 Shaileshkumar Radheshyam Dubey ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5393 OF 2006 Shivshyam Vijaynarayan Singh ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent Adv. Anil Singh i.b. Adv.Anil D.yadav For Petitioner Ms.kumud A. Bhatia For R.no.1 ( V.p. Filed) Government Pleader For R.no.3 For Respondent CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J DATE : 10th August, 2017 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the petitioners, Stand over to 18/08/2017 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5380 OF 2006 Jayprakash Kalicharan ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors., ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7975 OF 2006 Shaileshkumar Radheshyam Dubey ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5393 OF 2006 Shivshyam Vijaynarayan Singh ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J DATE : 18th August, 2017 P.C. : Matter to be placed in the week commencing from 28/08/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5380 OF 2006 Jaiprakash Kalicharan … Petitioner V/s. The President-Rashtabhasha Mahavidyalaya & Ors. … Respondents ----- Mr.Amogh Singh i/b. Mr.Anil D.Yadav, for the Petitioner. Ms.Kumud A.Bhatia, for Respondent No.1. Mr.P. P. Pujari, AGP for the State. C0RAM : G. S. KULKARNI, J. DATE : 28 October, 2021 PC : Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 have tendered the consent terms stating that the disputes and differences between the parties stand settled in terms of the consent terms. The consent terms are signed by the petitioner and by the President of respondent no.1 on behalf of respondent no.1. The signatures of the parties are identified their respective Advocates who have also initialed the consent terms. There is no dispute on the signatures as made on the consent terms. The consent terms are taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of the consent terms. No costs. (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Digitally PRASHANT VILAS RANE Date: 2021.11.01 20:02:01 +0530 PRASHANT VILAS RANE

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8846 OF 2024 …. …. Lakshmi Daulu Patil And Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Keshav Borhade i/b RK & Co. for the Petitioners. Smt.V.R. Raje, A.G.P. for the Respondent – State. CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. DATE : 1ST JULY 2024 P.C . : Mr.Borhade, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 15.3.2024, (page 23) ignores the position that permission was required to be sought for running a fare price shop by a salesman under the Government Resolution dated 5.1.1993, which still holds the field. It is further contended that illegalities, as found by the Additional Commissioner (Supply) in his order date 22.8.2022 to the effect that the respondent no.5 has himself admitted having issued duplicate receipts, and so also the report of the Enquiry Officer VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2024.07.01 20:06:04 +0530 that 13 out of 14 persons, from whom enquiry was made, have stated that they have received less grains, for which they have filed complaints on 20.4.2024, all have been ignored by respondent no.2 while passing the impugned order dated 15.3.2024, considering which, issue notice for final disposal, returnable on 29.7.2024. The learned AGP waives notice for respondent nos.1 to 4. The petitioners to serve respondent no.5 by all modes permissible in law by the returnable date. By way of ad-interim order, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 15.3.2024 is stayed till the next date. (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8846 OF 2024 Lakshmi Daulu Patil And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVINASH G. GHAROTE J DATE : 29th July, 2024 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 21/08/2024 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8846 OF 2024 Lakshmi Daulu Patil and Ors. … Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents None for the Petitioner. Smt. V.R.Raje, AGP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Sachin K. Hande, Advocate for Respondent No.5. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 21 st AUGUST, 2024. P.C. : None for the petitioner. By way of indulgence, stand over to 29 th August, 2024. It is clarified that if the petition is not heard for the reason attributable to the petitioners, the interim relief shall be vacated. Digitally signed SONALI SATISH KILAJE SATISH KILAJE Date: 2024.08.22 12:06:47 +0700 Interim relief, if any granted earlier to continue till the next date. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL/CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 29 th AUGUST 2024 P.C. . The following matters on the main board cannot be taken up due to paucity of time. The matters are adjourned to the dates respectively shown against them. Sr.Nos. Case Nos. Next Date 42 WP/8846/2024 (C) 27/09/2024 43 WP/9210/2024 (C) 27/09/2024 44 WP/9253/2024 (C) 27/09/2024 45 WP/9254/2024 (C) 27/09/2024 46 WP/9706/2024 (C) WITH WP/P9649/2024 WITH WP/9623/2024 27/09/2024 47 WP/10057/2024 (C) 27/09/2024 48 WP/10149/2024 (C) 27/09/2024 49 WP/11503/2024 (C) 27/09/2024 50 WP/1236/2010 (C) WITH WP/2582/2015 27/09/2024 51 WP/1205/2018 (C) WITH WP/3404/2013 WITH WP/9726/2017 27/09/2024 52 WP/4188/2019 (CR) 27/09/2024 53 WP/6384/2019 (CR) 07/10/2024 54 WP/1336/2022 (C) 07/10/2024 55 WP/10652/2022 (C) 07/10/2024 56 APL/620/2024 (CR) 07/10/2024 57 WP/5125/2024 (C) 07/10/2024 59 WP/7352/2024 (C) WITH WP/7532/2024 07/10/2024 60 WP/8400/2024 (C) 07/10/2024 61 WP/9197/2024 (C) 07/10/2024 62 WP/9222/2024 (C) 07/10/2024 63 WP/9250/2024 (C) 07/10/2024 64 WP/9751/2024 (C) 08/10/2024 65 WP/9859/2024 (C) 08/10/2024 66 WP/10282/2024 (C) 08/10/2024 67 WP/11171/2024 (C) 08/10/2024 68 IA/17344/2022 (C) WITH IA/17343/2022 IN WP/2165/1986 08/10/2024 If any ad-interim or interim relief granted in any of the above said matters, is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective assigned dates. R.M. JOSHI, J.

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8846 OF 2024 Lakshmi Daulu Patil and ors. …Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Principal ... Respondents Secretary and ors. Mr. Keshav Borhade along with Ms. Rajshree Borhade Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. V. R. Raje, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Ms. Poonam Pal i/b. Mr. Sachin Hande, Advocate for Respondent No.5. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 27th SEPTEMBER, 2024. P.C. : Stand over to 21st October 2024. Interim relief, granted earlier, to continue till the next date. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : 21st October, 2024. P. C. : On account of paucity of time, following matters on Daily Board stand adjourned as follows: stand adjourned as follows: Next Date Sr. Nos. Next Date Sr. Nos.45 to 70 (except Sr. No.64, 65) 14th January 2025. Sr. Nos.71 to 100 Sr. Nos.101 to 120 (except Sr. 15th January 2025. 7th February 2025. No.106) 10 th February 2025. If in any of the above matters, ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If ad-interim relief or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8846 OF 2024 Lakshmi Daulu Patil and ors. Petitioners VS. State of Maharashtra and ors. Respondents Mr. Keshav Borhade, for the Petitioner. Ms.N.M. Mehra, AGP for State-Respondent. Mr. Sachin Hande, for Respondent No.5. CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 21, 2025 P.C.: 1. By consent of the Petitioners and Respondent No.5, the impugned order is set aside. Revision Application before the Hon'ble Minister which is at page 167 of this paper-book may be decided on its own merits afresh and in accordance with law. Revision Application be decided expeditiously and preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of this order is placed for consideration before the Hon'ble Minister. 2. The Writ Petition is disposed of. 3. It is made clear that I have not made any observations on merits on rival contentions of the parties. All contentions of the parties are kept open. 4. The parties to appear before the Hon'ble Minister on 03/02/2025 at 2:30 p.m. when further schedule of the revision may be fixed. (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 877 OF 2008 Chandrakant Baburao @ Bhaurao Patil. .. Petitioner. vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Agglormeratin, Thane & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. S.G. Karandikar for Petitioner. Mr. V.S. Masurkar, Govt.Pleader for Respondent no.1 to 3. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: 11TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C. . Notice before admission returnable within four weeks. Govt. Pleader waives service for respondent nos. 1 to 3. In the meantime there will be an ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (e). (J.N. Patel, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 877 OF 2008 Chandrakant Baburao @ Bhaurao Patil ..Petitioner versus The Addl. Collector & Competent Authority Urban Agglomeration, Thane & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. G. Karandikar for Petitioner. Ms. M. P. Thakur – AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : JANUARY 04, 2010. P.C. : Heard Mr. Karandikar for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the possession of the land in question which was subject matter of proceeding under the Urban Land Ceiling Act is still with the petitioner. It is further contended that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in case of Voltas Limited vs. Addl. Collector and Competent Authority & Ors. reported in 2008(5) Bom. C.R. 746. In that view of the matter, the proceedings which are pending under the Act after the said decision stands vitiated if the possession of the land in question is with the petitioner. The learned AGP seeks time till 12th January, 2010 to verify whether the possession of the land is still with the petitioner. In the circumstances, time granted. Place the matter on 12th January, 2010 for admission. (D. D. SINHA, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 877 OF 2008 Chandrakant Baburao @ Bhaurao Patil ..Petitioner versus The Addl. Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Agglomeration, Thane & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. G. Karandikar for Petitioner. Mr. V. S. Gokhale – AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 – State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : MARCH 04, 2010. P.C. : The learned Assistant Government Pleader seeks further time of two weeks by way of last chance to seek instructions whether the possession of the land in question is still with the petitioner. Time granted by way of last chance. Place the matter on 19th March, 2010. (D. D. SINHA, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.877 OF 2008 Chandrakant Baburao @ Bhaurao Patil .... Petitioner V/s. The Addl. Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Agglomeration, Thane and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.S.G.Karandikar, for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP, for the respondents. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 19th MARCH, 2010 P.C. Rule. Learned AGP for the State waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of both the sides, petition is taken up for hearing today. The land of the petitioner was declared surplus under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Petitioner had submitted a scheme under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which was initially approved. However, subsequently, it was cancelled and the land was treated as excess. A notification under section 10(3) of the act, was published in the official Gazette on 01022007 and thereafter, notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 18062007. This aspect has been highlighted by the Government in Para No.1 of the affidavitinreply. However, in para No.1 it is stated that possession of excess land admeasuring 3260 sq.mtrs., has not been taken. During the course of hearing, learned AGP submitted that there is nothing to show that any physical possession was taken, nor any panchanama was made. It is therefore, an indubitable fact that the aforesaid area remained in the possession of the petitioner all through out till today. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the provisions of Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, which provides that "the repeal of the principal Act shall not affect, (a) the vesting of any vacant land under subSection (3) of Section 10, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf or the competent authority". Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not received any compensation in any manner and therefore, there is no question of any amount which is required to be paid back to the State Government as per subSection 2 of Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. It is required to be noted that in the case of Voltas Ltd. & Anr., V/s. Additional Collector & Competent Authority and Ors., 2008(5) 2 Bom.C.R. 746 , the Division Bench of this Court has held that : Now so far as those lands which are owned by the petitioners in relation to which a notification under subsection 3 of Section 10 of the Principal Act was issued and the order under subsection (5) of Section 10 of the Principal Act was made are concerned, it is the provisions of Section 3 of the Repeal Act which are relevant. Reading of Section 3 of the Repeal Act shows that it is a saving clause and subsection 1(a) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act saves vesting of any vacant land under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government. In other words, vesting of vacant lands under sub section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act in the State Government, possession of which has not been taken over, is not saved. In the present case, it is an admitted position that though declaration under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act was made, the possession of the land was not taken over by the Government or by the competent authority. Therefore, on bare reading of the provisions, it can be said that by virtue of repeal, vesting of the land of the first petitioner in the State by virtue of declaration made under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, is not saved. A submission on behalf of the State Government was made that by virtue of declaration made subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act in relation to the petitioners' land, the land has vested in the Government, but there is no provision in the Repeal Act which divest the State Government of the ownership of the land. In our opinion, this submission has no substance. Firstly, because the purpose of enacting section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act is to save or protect vesting of vacant lands in the State Government and out of the vacant lands that might have vested in the State Government by virtue of declarations made under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, only vesting of those lands in the State Government of which possession has been taken has been saved. Therefore, by necessary implication it follows that vesting of those lands in the State Government under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act of which possession has not been taken has been repealed or made ineffective. Vesting of the lands in the State Government had occurred because of the Principal Act which has been repealed. The Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of "India Tobacco Co.Ltd. Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Bhavanipore & others, (1975)3 Supreme Court Cases 512" has observed that "Repeal" connotes abrogation or obliteration of one statute by another, from the statute book as completely "as if it had never been passed". Therefore, the effect of the repeal is to wipe out the statute from existence. Therefore, the normal effect of repeal is to wipe out everything done under the repealed statute except that which is saved either expressly or by necessary implication. In the same judgment i.e. "India Tobacco Co.Ltd." the Supreme Court has observed that the repeal is not a matter of mere form but one of substance, depending upon the intention of the Legislature. If the intention of the legislature in repealing the enactment was to abrogate or wipe off the former enactment, wholly or in part, then that enactment will cease and would be deemed to have never exist at all, in so far as the part which the Legislature wants to wipe out totally is concerned. The principal submission of the State Government is that as the land of the petitioners has vested in the State Government because of the declaration made sub section 3 of Section 10 of the Principal Act and as there is no express provision made in the Repeal Act wiping out vesting of the land in the State Government, the State Government will continue to be the owner of the land. In our opinion, the submission has no substance. As indicated above, if it is assumed that there was no saving clause contained in the Repeal Act or had there been no section 6 of the General Clauses Act in existence then mere repeal of the enactment will wipe out the enactment out of existence and everything done under the enactment will also go away, and in this situation, therefore, to avoid that effect, the legislature enacts saving clause and the Parliamen t has also enacted section 6 of the General Clauses Act to save certain things from the effect of repeal. Therefore, it follows that except for that which is saved by the legislature by making specific provision or in the absence of specific provision by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, everything else under the Repeal Act is wiped out. In the present case by the saving clause contained in Section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act what is saved is vesting of the land in the State Government under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act possession of which was already taken over by the Government. In other words, therefore, vesting of land in the State Government in relation to those lands of which possession was not taken is wiped out. This position also becomes clear from the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. Subsection 2 of Section 3 of the Repeal Act is in the nature of a proviso or exception to section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act. If subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act had not been enacted, vesting of even those lands in the State Government in relation to which the amount has been paid by the State Government to the land owner but possession has not been taken, will also stand wiped out. Because of subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, now the land continues to be vested in the State Government though the possession of the land was not taken till the owner pays back the amount received by him. Had subsection (2) not been enacted because of the operation of section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act, the vesting of the land in the State Government would have been wiped out because the possession is not taken and the land owner would be entitled to retain the amount received by him from the State Government as also the land. Subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act was enacted by the legislature to ensure that the Government gets back the amount which is paid by it before the land reverts to the land owner. In other words the effect of the provision of Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act is to postpone cancellation of vesting of the land in the State Government till the land owner pays back the amount received by him. In the case covered by Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act, the land owner gets back title of the land only on payment of the amount that he had received under the Act from the government. In our opinion, what is contained in Section 4 of the Repeal Act also indicate that vesting of those lands possession of which has not been taken over by the State Government will revert back to the land owner. It is to be seen that the land is, by operation of the provisions of sub section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, vested in the State Government, so that the State Government can deal with that land under the Principal Act. Perusal of Section (4) of the Repeal Act shows that only the provisions of Section 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Principal Act continue to operate even after the repeal in relation to the land of which possession has been taken. In other words, after 29.11.2007 the provisions of Section 11,12,13 and 14 of the Principal Act are not available to the State Government in relation to the land of which possession has not been taken. Thus, if it is held that even after the Repeal Act, the State Government continues to have title of the land of which it has not taken possession, then it will mean that the Government has become title holder of the land without paying any amount to the land owner and with no possibility of amount being determined and paid under Section 11 of the Principal Act because those provisions do not continue to apply after the repeal in relation to the lands possession of which has not been taken. At this juncture, it becomes necessary to refer to the scheme of Section 10 of the Principal Act. Section 10 of the Principal Act reads as under: "10. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit: (1) As soon as may be after the service of the statement under section 9 on the person concerned, the competent authority shall cause a notification giving the particulars of the vacant land held by such person in excess of the ceiling limit and stating that (i) such vacant land is to be acquired by the concerned State Government; and (ii) the claims of all person interested in such vacant land may be made by them personally or by their agents giving particulars of the nature of their interests in such land, to be published for the information of the general public in the Official Gazette of the State concerned and in such other manner as may be prescribed. (2) After considering the claims of the persons interested in the vacant land, made to the competent authority in pursuance of the notification published under subsection (1), the competent authority shall determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass such others as it deems fit. (3) At any time after the publication of the notification under subsection (1) the competent authority may, by notification published in the Official Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under subsection (1) shall, with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and upon the publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified. (4) During the period commencing on the date of publication of the notification under subsection (1) and ending with the date specified in the declaration made under subsection (3) (i) no person shall transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any excess vacant land (including any part thereof) specified in the notification aforesaid and any such transfer made in contravention of this provision shall be deemed to be null and void; and (ii) no person shall alter or cause to be altered the use of such excess vacant land. (5) where any vacant land is vested in the State Government under subsection (3), the competent authority may by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of it to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or to any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice. (6) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under subsection (5), the competent authority may take possession of the vacant land or cause it to be given to the concerned State Government or to any person duly authorised by such State Government in this behalf and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary. Explanation: In this section, in sub section (1) of Sec. 11 and in sections 14 and 23, "State Government", in relation to (a) any vacant land owned by the Central Government, means the Central Government; (b) any vacant land owned by any State Government and situated in the Union Territory or within the local limits of a cantonment declared as such under section 3 of the Cantonments Act,1924, means that State Government." Perusal of the above provisions shows that vesting of the land in the State Government occurs on publication of notification in the official Gazette under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act. Thereafter, the competent authority gets power to make order directing the person who is in possession of the land to surrender or deliver the possession of the land to the State Government, and if that person does not deliver the possession then the Competent authority becomes competent to take possession under subsection (6) of Section 10 of the Principal Act. Thus, after 29.11.2007, the provisions of subsection (5) and subsection (6) of Section 10 of the Principal Act are not available to the State Government, therefore, in relation to that land with respect to which declaration under sub section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act has been made but possession has not been taken, the Competent authority will not be entitled to make an order directing the person in possession of the land to deliver the possession to the Government nor the Competent authority would be entitled to take possession under subsection (6) of Section 10 of the Principal Act on failure of the person in possession to deliver the possession. Thus, the State Government will not be in a position to take possession of the land under the provisions of the Principal Act, it will also not be in a position to to determine the compensation of the land under Section 11 of the Principal Act and make payment to that compensation to the interested persons under Section 14 of the Principal Act. Section 4 of the Repeal Act keeps the provisions of Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 relating to determination of amount and payment of amount alive only in relation to the land possession of which has been taken by the Government. In our opinion, therefore, it is clear from the provisions of the Repeal Act that as a result of the Repeal Act neither any proceedings can continue nor the State Government can claim that the land continued to vest in it if possession of the land in relation to which declaration under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act has been made, has not been taken before 29.11.2007. In other words to claim that vesting of the land in the State Government is saved, it will have to be shown by the State Government that the possession of the land in accordance with the provisions of the Principal Act has been taken by the Government before 29.11.2007. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and the fact that physical possession all through out remained with the petitioner, especially when the Government has not taken paper possession, nor any panchanama was made in view of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, the proceedings abate and now the petitioner cannot be ask for recovering possession and now there is no question of taking possession. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute. ( R.G.KETKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5258 OF 2007 Colin Douglas Hoogewere ...... ....Petitioner. V/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr........ ....Respondents. Mr.P.S.Dani, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Warerkar i/by M/s.Warerkar & Warerkar for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 27/7/07 PC: The present petitioner is already defending proceedings under the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1971 (the "Act") as an occupant of the premises. One Smt.Iris Honey was the tenant and the case of the respondentInsurance company is that the present petitioner was illegally inducted in the premises by the tenant. The proceedings are initiated under the said act against the tenant so also the present petitioneroccupant. Iris Honey expired during the pendency of proceedings on 21.5.06 and thus the present petitioner moved an application to bring his name on record as legal representative of the deceased. The rejection of the said application has given rise to the present writ petition. The relationship of the petitioner with the deceased has not been clearly spelt out even in this petition, when the application itself was rejected on the grant that the petitioner had not placed on record any material in support of relationship. As the petitioner is already defending the proceedings as occupant no prejudice will be caused if the petitioner is not brought on record as legal representative of the deceased. Perused the order. Same does not call for interference. Thus writ petition stands summarily dismissed. If and in case some other legal representative of Iris Honey is brought on record it shall be open for the petitioner to take up appropriate proceedings before appropriate Forum to litigate the rights. 27.7.07