Bombay High Court
Jai Ambe (Chembur Vadhvali) Sra Co ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And 6 Others on 6 December, 2018
Author: G.S.Kulkarni
Bench: G.S.Kulkarni
RNG 1
wp3402
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3402 of 2018
Jai Ambe (Chembur Vadhvali SRA
Co-operative Housing Society Ltd .. Petitioner
vs
State of Maharashtra & ors .. Respondents
.....
Mr.Shakeeb Shaikh I.b Mr.Mangesh Nalawade for Petitioner Mr.G.W.Mattos for Respondent no.2 Ms.Vrushali Maindad I.b Mr.Abhijeet Desai for Respondent no.3-SRA Mr.Mayur Khandeparkar with Ms.Pratibha Rupnawal,Ms.Sheetal Raghani,Mr.Vikram Grewal I/b M/s J.Law Asso for Respondent no.5 CORAM: G.S.KULKARNI, J DATE: 6TH DECEMBER 2018 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Mattos appearing for respondent no.2 and Ms.Maindad learned counsel for respondent no.3-SRA.
2. As the contesting parties are before the Court, there is no impediment in passing final orders on this petition which challenges an ad-interim order dated 1.9.2018 passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee rejecting ad-interim reliefs on a application as made on behalf of the petitioner. ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 08:04:32 ::: RNG 2
wp3402
3. By an order dated 4.7.2018 the competent authority of the SRA rejected the petitioner's application for change of developer. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners had moved the application in question (Application (Lodging) No.164 of 2018) before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee and sought ad- interim reliefs in following terms:-
"(i) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, to restrain the respondents from implementing the slum scheme on the subject land being plots of land admeasuring 5,930.38 square meters bearing CTS Nos.497 (pt) and 22 (pt) of Village Chembur, Village Kurla situated at Jai Ambe (Chembur Vadhvali) SRA Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, Adarsh Nagar, R.C.Marg, Chembur Colony, Chembur, Mumbai
- 400 074 and for interim and ad-interim reliefs more particularly set out in the petition."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order, ad-interim relief has been rejected. It is submitted that considering the nature of the order, the petitioner would not be in a position to seek any further interim reliefs before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner be permitted to file a fresh interim application so as to make specific interim prayers.
5. In my opinion, if such a request is made by the petitioners to file a fresh application it cannot be rejected. The ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 08:04:32 ::: RNG 3 wp3402 proceedings of the appeal are still alive and pending before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee.
6. In the above circumstances, the petitioners are permitted to file a fresh interim application praying for interim reliefs in the pending application (Application (Lodging) No.164 of 2018 filed before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee. Such an application be filed within a period of ten days from today. If such an application is filed the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee shall consider the said application as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of six weeks from the application being filed.
7. Needless to observe that all contentions of the parties on the merits of the application are expressly kept open.
8. The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee shall decide the application on its own merits and without being influenced by the impugned order dated 1.9.2018.
Petition is accordingly disposed of in above terms {G.S.KULKARNI, J} ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 08:04:32 :::