Bombay High Court
M/S Sovereign Tech Engineering ... vs Maharashtra Industrial Development ... on 1 April, 2026
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2026:BHC-AS:20275-DB 903 WP 3736 OF 2021,J..DOC
xIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3736 OF 2021
1) M/s. Sovereign Tech Engineering ]
Services Pvt. Ltd., ] ...Petitioners
a Company incorporated under the ]
Indian Companies Act, ]
having its factory at Plot No. A : 515 ]
TTC Industrial Area, Mahape, ]
Navi Mumbai. ]
Through its Authorized ]
Representative ]
Mr. Kalpesh Thakarshi Gosar; ]
2) Vanita Sarvanand Bhujle, ]
Director M/s. Sovereign Tech ]
Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., ]
A Company incorporated under the ]
Indian Companies Act, ]
Having its factory at : ]
Plot No. A:515, ]
TTC Industrial Area, Mahape, ]
Navi Mumbai. ] ..Respondents
Versus
1) Maharashtra Industrial Development ]
Corporation (MIDC), ]
Through the Chief Executive Officer, ]
Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), ]
Mumbai - 400 093. ]
2) The Deputy Chief Executive Engineer ]
Digitally
signed by
RAJESHRI and Special Planning Authority, ]
RAJESHRI PRAKASH
PRAKASH AHER
AHER Date:
Maharashtra Industrial Development ]
2026.04.28
18:38:33 Corporation, Mahakali Caves Road, ]
+0530
Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400 093. ]
3) The Regional Officer, ]
Maharashtra Industrial Development ]
Corporation, Near Mahape, Navi
Page 1 of 20
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 20:33:47 :::
903 WP 3736 OF 2021,J..DOC
Mumbai. ]
4) The District Collector, Thane, Office of ]
the Asstt. Collector, Near District and ]
Sessions Court, Thane. ]
5) The State of Maharashtra, Through ]
the Chief Secretary, Government of ]
Maharashtra, Mantralya, Mumbai. ]
6) The Secretary, ]
Urban Development Department, ]
Government of Maharashtra, ]
Mantralya, Mumbai - 400 032. ]
7) The Secretary, ]
Ministry of Industries, Government of ]
Maharashtra, Mantralya, Mumbai. ]
8) The Secretary, ]
Department of Environment & Forest, ]
Government of Maharashtra, 15th ]
Floor, New Administrative Bldg., ]
Madam Cama Road, Mantralaya, ]
Mumbai 400 032. ]
9) Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, ]
Kalpataru Point, 3rd and 4th floor, ]
Opp. Cine Planet, Sion Circle, ]
Mumbai - 400 022. ]
10) The Secretary, ]
Ministry of Environment, Forest & ]
Climate Change, Sastri Bhavan, ]
New Delhi. ]
11) The Secretary, ]
Government of India ]
Ministry of Urban Development, ]
Shartri Bhavan, New Delhi. ]
12) Vandana Krishna Patil ]
(PAP-A-270) ]
W/o. Krishna Vithoba Patil, ]
R/at. 161 Nishiwadi, At & Post Airoli, ]
Taluka & District - Thane, ]
Page 2 of 20
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 20:33:47 :::
903 WP 3736 OF 2021,J..DOC
Navi Mumbai. ]
13) Pandurang Atmaram Gharge, ]
(PAP-A-271) ]
Adult Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai ]
Residing at : Chawl No.6, Room No.1, ]
Krushn Patil Wadi, Jivan Sangram ]
Maidan, Behind Dnyanvidhyapith ]
School, Manorama Nagar, Majivada, ]
Thane (West) - 400 607. ]
14) M/s. M. H. Ingicon Pvt. Ltd., ]
(PAP-A-291 to PAP-A-298) ]
Through its Director Shri. Mandar K. ]
Patil, House No.60, Hamusmurti, ]
Village Turbhe, ]
Navi Mumbai - 400 703. ]
15) Shri. Mahukar Keshav Mhatre, ]
(PAP - A - 298) ]
T.T.C. Industrial Area, MIDC, Mahape, ]
Navi Mumbai. ]
16) M/s. Kesari Press Pvt. Ltd., ]
(PAP-A-299) ]
Through its Director ]
Shri. Nitin K. Patil, Shop No.23, ]
Plot No. 54, Sector : 128, ]
Koparkhairane, ]
Navi Mumbai - 400 709. ]
Mr. Devansh Shah a/w. Mr. Arnav Rane and Mr. Tejas Shinde
i/b. E. A. Sasi, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Ms. S. D. Vyas, Addl. G.P. a/w. Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP, for the
Respondent - State.
Ms. Shyamali Gadre a/w. Ms. Mrunal Tavade i/b. M/s. Little &
CO., Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (MIDC).
Mr. Jitendra P. Jagtap, Advocate for Respondent No. 9
(MPCB).
Mr R. V. Govilkar, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Anil D. Yadav,
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 10 and 11.
Page 3 of 20
Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 20:33:47 :::
903 WP 3736 OF 2021,J..DOC
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED: 1st APRIL, 2026.
ORDER (Per : Manjusha Deshpande, J.):-
1. The Petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 14, Mahinder Chambers, W.T. Patil Marg, Chembur, Mumbai, and its factory is located at Plot No. A-515 of T.T.C. industrial area, Mahape , Navi Mumbai. The Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and providing technology- intensive products, concepts, and services to the Indian metal working industry. The Petitioner has been carrying out the said activities at its factory since its construction in or about the year 2005. The Petitioner's factory is situated at the centre of Trans Thane Creek (TTC) MIDC and is in close proximity to the Regional Office of MIDC at Mahape. The said area is an eco-sensitive zone owing to its location at the foot of hilly terrain and being surrounded by hills from three sides. The Petitioner presently operates two manufacturing units situated at Plot No. A-515 and Plot No. A-515/1, which, owing to their location, have allegedly become flood-prone as Page 4 of 20 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 20:33:47 ::: 903 WP 3736 OF 2021,J..DOC the allottees of plot no. PAP-A-270 and PAP-A-271 have blocked the Natural Storm Water pond by dumping large scale debris, thereby diverting the natural flow of the storm water nallah. Similarly, the plot owners PAP-A-270, 290, 386 and 387 were allowed to construct on a cluster basis destroying the natural strength of the Storm Water base, as a result of which, Petitioner's factory as well as certain other factories situated in the area have become vulnerable to the flooding, due to the close proximity of hilly terrain. According to the Petitioner large scale construction and complete obstruction of the natural flow of the storm-water has caused flooding in his plot initially in 29 th August 2017, due to which, substantial part of the facility on his plot No. A- 515 was flooded. Thereafter, many such incidences have occurred repeatedly. On this background the Petitioner has approached this Court with prayers (a) to (r). However, during the course of arguments, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner has given up his prayer in clauses (a) to (d).
2. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Devansh Shah, would submit that, at the time of allotment of his plot, the adjoining plot between the northern boundary of the Page 5 of 20 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 20:33:47 ::: 903 WP 3736 OF 2021,J..DOC Petitioner's plot and the proposed 20 meter wide road, a plot was reserved as an amenity plot, which consisted of a large natural storm-water retention pond connected to a natural storm water nallah, through which the rain water flowing through the hills was collected in the retention pond, when the retention pond filled up it used to flow from the nallah, as a natural course. The MIDC has levelled the land by dumping large scale debris, thereby blocking the storm-water nallah. The levelled land has been allotted as reserved plot to the Project Affected Persons (PAP). These plot holders constructed tiny cluster of structures over the entire retention pond and nallah, which is in total violation of the Industrial Policy, Disaster Management Act 2005, and National Disaster Management Guidelines for management of urban flooding.
3. The learned Advocate submits that, substantial quantity of water is retained in the said pond, which has well defined banks and therefore it is a major watercourse defined under MIDC Revised Development Control Regulation, 2009. It is submitted that, after allotment of the plots, the concerned PAP allottees have illegally filled the large Page 6 of 20 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 20:33:47 ::: 903 WP 3736 OF 2021,J..DOC retention pond and blocked the nallah which is in violation of MIDC Regulation 2009. Similar difficulties are faced by various other factories in the area. Therefore they filed a representative suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 40 of 2015, before the learned Civil Judge (JD), Belapur.
4. The Petitioner also raises a grievance that several structures have come up on natural storm water nallah, by levelling it partly or fully. Alongwith these structures, there are several other structures and shanties that have come up, blocking the natural course of the storm water which have been used either as a lodging, restaurant, transport service, parking of buses and trucks, used as commercial premises by the vegetable vendors, shops etc. These are the additional unauthorized structures, which have directly encroached upon the storm water nallahs.
5. It is alleged by the petitioner that, while permitting such development on the M.I.D.C. Plot., the Authorities of the M.I.D.C. have apparently not obtained permissions from the Ministry of Environment, forest and climate change, pollution control Board, and authorities under the Factories Page 7 of 20 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 20:33:47 ::: 903 WP 3736 OF 2021,J..DOC Act. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 have also failed to take adequate steps to implement the provisions of Disaster Management Act, 2005 and National Building Code of India 2005. Due to violation of the various enactments, there is a consistent and recurring flooding in the area. Referring to Sections 25(1), 30(1), 37(1), 39, of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, it is submitted that, structures by the PAP are in violation of these provisions. It is submitted that, if the leveling / diversion of natural nallahs and basins are not effectively prevented by taking timely action, there is every likelihood of grave consequences like flooding, accidents or any other calamity due to negligence of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, which is likely to cause substantial loss of life or destruction to property.
6. Petitioner further submits that, the road width in PAP area is less than 10 meters against the minimum width of 18 meters as prescribed by the expert committee of Disaster Management. Rule 36.2 mandates constructions of drains and channelization of storm water drain. Referring to Rule 36.3, he would submit that, there is a total restriction on building activity in the bed of water bodies like river, lake , Page 8 of 20 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 20:33:47 ::: 903 WP 3736 OF 2021,J..DOC pond or nallah/storm water drain, no such activity is permissible within 12 meters from nallahs and canals. However, the respondent No. 2, in utter violation of the mandatory provisions of law has allotted the plots to PAP, and permitted them to construct unscientifically without planning and is contrary to the guidelines of the National Disaster Management Act, with respect to the operation and maintenance of storm water nallahs.
7. On the aforementioned background, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions to effectively prevent any further construction on the earmarked plot/amenity plot and also to remove and demolish already constructed structures and relocate the plot holders by removing the entire derbies and prevent any such recurrence in future.
8. The Petitioner further submits that, inspite of the various orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in PIL No. 53 of 2013, dated 5th July 2013, 8th October 2017, 14th November 2017 directing the MIDC inter alia to enforce the order of removal of encroachment and illegal constructions put up in Page 9 of 20 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 20:33:48 ::: 903 WP 3736 OF 2021,J..DOC the open space no.2 in C Block, TTC Industrial area, if necessary by taking assistance of the police officers, with a further direction to identify the officers for putting up and supporting such encroachment and illegal construction on open space. The Respondent Authorities have allowed the encroachment to perpetuate, irrespective of the knowledge of the order dated 14th November 2017, and the encroachment are still not removed.
9. The learned Advocate submits that vide letter dated 01.11.2017, the Petitioners have requested to initiate enquiry into the allotment of PAP Plots No. A-270 to A-299 with A- 386 and A-387 to ascertain whether necessary environment clearance has been obtained before taking decision of allotment and also requested to relocate the aforementioned PAP occupants to protect the Eco-sensitive area of the western ghats. However, they did not receive any response to the request made by them.
10. It is submitted that the Petitioners have also filed Writ Petition No. 11303 of 2017, before this Court seeking directions to cancel the allotment of PAP-A-270 to PAP-A-299 Page 10 of 20 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 20:33:48 ::: 903 WP 3736 OF 2021,J..DOC and PAP-A-386 and PAP-A-387 and also for revocation of construction permission granted in respect of PAP Plot No. A-270. Upon hearing the Petitioner, this Court vide order dated 11.10.2017 has been pleased to allow the Petitioner to withdraw the Writ Petition, with liberty to approach appropriate forum for the relief sought in the Writ Petition.
11. It is submitted that pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, the Petitioner has filed RCS No. 310 of 2018, before the Civil Judge, Junior Division at CBD Belapur, seeking permanent injunction restraining the plot holders, bearing plot no. PAP-A-270, and PAP-A-271 from carrying on further construction, so as to restore the natural flow of storm water. In the said suit, the Petitioner had taken out an injunction application, however, vide order dated 19.12.2025, the injunction application has been dismissed.
12. It is submitted that, since the suit itself was filed for restraining the further construction on the suit plots, and by the time the injunction application could be decided, the construction was complete, thereby rendering the suit infructuous. Hence, the Petitioner has withdrawn the suit. He Page 11 of 20 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 20:33:48 ::: 903 WP 3736 OF 2021,J..DOC therefore submits that presently no other proceedings are pending for relief sought in the present Writ Petition and this is the only remedy available to them.
13. Considering that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in flagrant violation of various provisions of law, have allotted the plots to the PAP and allowed constructions, causing damage to the environment and the eco system, it warrants interference by this Court by issuing appropriate directions, as prayed in the Writ Petition more particularly prayer Clauses (e), (f) (g) and (h), which read thus:
"(e) In the alternative to prayer clause (b) above, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to cancel the allotment of all the PAP Plots Nos. A-270 to A-299 arid PAP-A-386 and PAP-A-387 shown therein which are situated at MIDC Industrial Area at Mahape, Navi Mumbai, Dist: Thane; and be further pleased to issue appropriate order for demolition of all such constructions /structures/ building standing in the said PAP plots, and to restore statusquo ante existed originally;
(f) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass further appropriate writ, order or direction thereby cancelling/revoking the permission for development and/or Construction, if any, granted in respect of all the PAP Plots Nos. A-270 to A-299 and PAP-A-386 and PAP-A-
387 shown in Exhibit K annexed hereto which are situated at MIDC Industrial Area at Mahape, Navi Mumbai, Dist: Thane; and to further cancel the permission for development of the remaining PAP plots which are still to be developed;
Page 12 of 20 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 20:33:48 ::: 903 WP 3736 OF 2021,J..DOC
(g) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased issue appropriate order and direction for instituting appropriate Inquiry to fix responsibility on the concerned officers/employees/ persons responsible for the allotment of all the PAP Plots Nos. A-270 to A-299 and PAP-A-386 and PAP-A-387 shown in Exhibit K annexed hereto which are situated at MIDC Industrial Area at Mahape, Navi: Mumbai, Dist: Thane; and allowing construction on the Natural Storm Water Nallah and Retention Pond, with further appropriate directions for action to be taken as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court;
(h) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate order and directions to the concerned Respondents directing them to take all necessary measures for restoration of status quo ante existed prior to allotment of all the PAP Plots Nos. A-270 to A-299 and PAP-A-386 and PAP-A-387 shown in Exhibit K annexed hereto which are situated at MIDC Industrial Area at Mahape, Navi Mumbai, Dist: Thane; for demolition of the construction already carried out in the said PAP Plots, for removal of debris there from, restraining any further Constructions in any of the said PAP Plots and to take further measures for preserving the Natural Storm Water Nallas and Retention Basins situated near the Hilly Terrain of Mahape surrounding the said PAP Plots and further directions to comply with the statutory provisions, guidelines and requirements prescribed /recommended by the National, State & District Disaster Management Authorities under the National Disaster Management Act, 2005 on Management of Urban flooding laid down by the National Disaster Management Authority, Government of India, New Delhi, vide their publication Reference No. ISBN: 978-93-80440-09-5, September, 2010; and other relevant provisions of law, National Building Code of India."
14. The learned Advocate Ms. Shyamali Gadre, for Respondent No. 1 to 3 opposes the prayers of the Petitioner. She would submit that, at the outset she raises objection on Page 13 of 20 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 20:33:48 ::: 903 WP 3736 OF 2021,J..DOC the maintainability of Writ Petition at the threshold. She submits that the provisions of Disaster Management Act, 2005, are not applicable to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Corporation, since MIDC has been declared as a Special Planning Authority under Section 40(1A) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and thus, is not a District Authority or a local authority. So far as the allegation about allotment of PAP Plot from Plot No. PAP- A-270 to A-275, those were converted from an amenity plot AM-5 into PAP Plot, which never had any retention pond . So far as the allegation about flooding of the plot of the Petitioner situated on Plot No. A-515 is concerned, it is submitted that the plot of the Petitioner is at a considerable distance from OS-12 i.e. the Water Retention Area, which does not have any impact on the Petitioner's plot.
15. The learned Advocate submits that the corporation has separate development control regulations, which came into effect from 7th January 1999. About 60% of the total area is used for industrial purpose and 25% is used for road, pipelines, footpath etc., 10 % of the area is required to be kept as a compulsory open space and 5% area is compulsorily Page 14 of 20 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 20:33:48 ::: 903 WP 3736 OF 2021,J..DOC required to be kept for amenities, such as Post Office, Telephone Exchange, Schools, Colleges, educational institutes, training centers etc. She submits that the PAP Plots are not carved out either from the open space or from OS-12, but from the amenity plot out of the 5%, that was kept open. The amenity plot AM-5 has been converted into PAP plot. Therefore, there cannot be any water retention within its periphery which is allegedly caused by PAP plot holders by dumping the debris and carrying out constructions in it. The Corporation has maintained the open spaces in accordance with the Development control regulations.
16. Inviting our attention to the orders passed in Writ Petition No.11303 of 2017, as well as the prayer in Regular Civil Suit No. 310 of 2018, she would submit that, before both the forums the prayers of the Petitioners are one and the same. The Petitioner has preferred to withdraw both the proceedings. In fact, the withdrawal of Writ Petition on 11 th October 2017, is with liberty to agitate the issue before the appropriate forum, instead of pursing the remedy before the learned Civil Judge (JD) Belapur, the Petitioners have again preferred to withdraw the suit. Thus, applying the principles Page 15 of 20 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 20:33:48 ::: 903 WP 3736 OF 2021,J..DOC of res judicata, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable and the Petitioners cannot be permitted to reopen the same issue with the same prayers once again. She would, thus, submit that, none of the prayers in the Writ Petition are maintainable; hence, the same deserves to be dismissed.
17. We have heard the learned respective Advocate for the parties and perused the documents on record. After hearing the learned Advocate for the Petitioners for some time, when we were not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition, the learned Advocate had sought some time to take instructions for withdrawal of the same. When we resumed the hearing, he submitted that, he would restrict his prayer to Clauses (e),
(f), (g) and (h). Upon perusal of prayer (e), we find that, the petitioners are seeking cancellation of allotment of PAP plot Nos. A-270 to A-299 and PAP A-386 and A-387; prayer Clause
(f) seeks directions direction to cancel/revoke the permission for development or construction, if any, granted in respect of the aforementioned plots. Prayer Clause (h) seeks directions to issue appropriate orders, directing the concerned authorities to take all necessary measures, for restoration of the status-quo ante, existing prior to allotment Page 16 of 20 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 20:33:48 ::: 903 WP 3736 OF 2021,J..DOC of PAP Plot No. A-270 to A-299 and PAP A-386 and A-387; for demolition of constructions, already carried out on the said PAP plot; for removal of debris and for restraining any further constructions on any of the PAP plots and ensure the measures are taken for preserving natural storm water nallahs and retention basin situated near the hilly terrain of Mahape surrounding the said PAP plot, and further directions to comply with the statutory provisions and guidelines under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and guidelines issued by the National Disaster Management Authority and other provisions of law.
18. All these prayers made by the Petitioners are based on the allegation that there is a huge natural storm water retention pond situated in the MIDC area, in which the rain water from the hilly terrain used to get accumulated. This storm water retention pond has acted as natural protection to the Petitioners' factory and protected it from being flooded. An open plot / amenity plot consisted of large natural storm water retention pond, which connected to a natural storm water nallah through which the water flowing from nearby hills is collected into a natural retention pond. Page 17 of 20 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 20:33:48 ::: 903 WP 3736 OF 2021,J..DOC The said reserve plot has been allotted to the PAP, who for the construction have leveled the plot by dumping the debris and obstructed the entire course of natural storm water nallah and the retention pond. The MIDC had allowed Cluster of PAP structures over such retention plots, which is contrary to the Development Control Regulations and Disaster Management Act.
19. It is the grievance of the Petitioners that due to obstruction in the flow of the nallah as well as the retention pond, the water spills out and gets flooded in his factory premises, thereby causing damage to his property. The Petitioners have referred to various enactments urging that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have committed breach of provisions of various enactments by allotting the plot to PAP and allowing them to make constructions in violations of the rules, resultantly, causing damage to his property and violation of his right.
20. So far as conversion of amenity plots and its allotment to the PAP is concerned, while responding to the allegations made by the Petitioner, it is a specific stand of the Page 18 of 20 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 20:33:48 ::: 903 WP 3736 OF 2021,J..DOC Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that, the plots of the PAP were never carved out from the open space or OS 12, but is an amenity plot which was kept open for amenities such as post office, telephone exchange, schools, colleges, training center etc. The amenities are maintained out of 5 % compulsory open space according to the development control regulations of the MIDC. The PAP plots are converted from this amenity plot which does not create any obstruction to the natural flow of water or to the retention pond.
21. It is also submitted that the plot of the Petitioner i.e. A- 515 is at a considerable distance from OS 12, which has the water retention pond. Therefore, there is no possibility of flooding the petitioners plot and therefore, all such allegations are denied. Even the allegation about retention pond being demolished and flattened is also denied. As a result of the denial by the Respondent No.1 of causing any such obstruction and encroachment by the holders of the PAP plots, raises disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. Page 19 of 20 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 20:33:48 ::: 903 WP 3736 OF 2021,J..DOC
22. Similarly, the Writ Petition No. 11303 of 2017, filed by the Petitioners before this Court with the similar reliefs has already been withdrawn, to approach appropriate forum and after approaching the civil court, the Petitioner has withdrawn the suit. Thus, once having withdrawn the Writ Petition, which was pending before this Court without pursuing the remedy which was availed by the Petitioners, the Petitioners have opted to withdraw the suit. Therefore, once having withdrawn the suit, the Petitioners are now precluded from once again claiming the same reliefs before this Court.
23. Hence, in view of the disputed question of facts raised by the parties, and withdrawal of Writ Petition No. 11303 of 2017 as well as the Civil Suit No. 310 of 2018, the Petitioners are now precluded from agitating the same grievance once again before this Court. As such, the Writ petition does not merit consideration. Hence, dismissed.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.) Page 20 of 20 Rajeshri Aher ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 20:33:48 :::