Bombay High Court
Citispace And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 1 March, 2022
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: Makarand Subhash Karnik
901-ial12380-2021 in wp1152-2002
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 12380 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1152 OF 2002
Citispace & Ors. ...Petitioners
vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.7 OF 2003
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.8 OF 2003
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.30 OF 2003
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.253 OF 2003
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.254 OF 2003
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.261 OF 2003
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.326 OF 2003
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.328 OF 2003
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.337 OF 2003
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.338 OF 2003
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.5 OF 2005
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.29 OF 2005
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.30 OF 2005
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.31 OF 2005
WITH
1
901-ial12380-2021 in wp1152-2002
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.20 OF 2006
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.130 OF 2006
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.195 OF 2006
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.82 OF 2008
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.107 OF 2008
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.30716 OF 2021
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.60 OF 2009
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.31 OF 2010
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.227 OF 2010
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.579 OF 2010
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.143 OF 2011
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.237 OF 2011
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3 OF 2012
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.297 OF 2012
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.5 OF 2013
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.34 OF 2014
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.54 OF 2014
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.56 OF 2014
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.88 OF 2014
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 28993 OF 2021
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.194 OF 2014
WITH
2
901-ial12380-2021 in wp1152-2002
NOTICE OF MOTION (L.) NO.290 OF 2014
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.218 OF 2014
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.219 OF 2014
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 28343 OF 2021
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.66 OF 2019
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 28459 OF 2021
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.192 OF 2017
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L.) NO.2716 OF 2020
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.170 OF 2013
Mr. Shiraz Rustomjee, Senior Advocate with Ms. Gulnaar
Mistry, Mr. Prateek Pai, Mr. Zulfiqar Jariwala, Mr. Shabbir
Jariwala i/b. Thakore Jariwala & Associates, for Petitioners and
for Applicants in IA(L)/12380/2021.
Mr. Abhay Patki, Addl. G.P. for State.
Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Girish Utangale and
Mr. Saurabh Utangale i/by Utangale & Co. for Respondent
No.2-SRA.
Ms. Soma Singh a/w Mr. Rahul Sanghvi, Mr. Mehul Kheka i/by
M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for Respondent No.7.
Ms. K. H. Mastakar for MCGM.
Mr. Pravin Samdani, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Mayur
Khandeparkar, Mr. Vikramjit Sing Garewal, Mr. Nitesh Ranavat,
Ms. Disha Shetty and Mr. Mustaqueem Bagsaria i/by Wadia
Ghandy & Co. for Applicant in IA/28993/2021 in
WP/1152/2002.
Mr. Chirag Mody a/w Mr. Varun Nathani and Ms. Sheetal
Chavan i/by Mr. Ashok Purohit & Co. for Applicant in
IA(L)/28343/2021.
3
901-ial12380-2021 in wp1152-2002
Mr. Prasad Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Viraj
Parikh, Mr. Samit Shukla and Ms. Aneesa Cheema i/by DSK
Legal, for Applicant in IA(L)/30716/2021.
Mr. Rajeev Carvalho a/w Mr. Munaf Virjee and Mr. Akash
Agarwal i/by ABH LLP for Applicant in IA(L)/28459/2021.
Mr. Harish R. Pawar for Applicant in IAL/2716/2020.
Mr. Pritesh Parmar i/b Mr. Amardev J. Uniyal for Respondent in
CHSW/88/2014.
Mr. Prathmesh Seth i/b Mr. Joseph Fernandes Applicant in
NMW/66/2019.
C0RAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE: MARCH 1, 2022
PC:
I.A.(L) No. 12380 of 2021
And
I.A. (L) NO. 28993 OF 2021
1. Writ Petition No. 1152 of 2002 is a public interest litigation at the instance of three petitioners. CitiSpace, the first petitioner, is an association of persons inter alia engaged in protection and rightful use of public open spaces in Mumbai. The second and the third petitioners are the convenor and member of the Steering Committee of the first petitioner, respectively. Both of them are citizens of India as well as rate payers.
2. This public interest litigation was instituted by the petitioners to espouse a noble cause, viz. preventing the 4 901-ial12380-2021 in wp1152-2002 respondents, i.e., the State of Maharashtra through the Department of Urban Development (respondent no.1), the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (respondent no.2), and the Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation (respondent no.3) from legitimizing encroachments of open spaces in Mumbai. Accordingly, it was prayed that sanctions/approvals granted to proposals for rehabilitation of slum dwellers on open spaces be set aside. Multiple other prayers were also made in the public interest litigation.
3. This Court upon hearing the petitioners and the respondents passed the following order on 31st July 2002:
" Heard parties.
2. Respondent no. 2 is directed to file an affidavit disclosing necessary information as claimed in prayer clauses
(c)(i) to (xiii) of the writ petition.
3. Adjourned for four weeks. In the meantime, until further orders, no new rehabilitation scheme be sanctioned without the permission of this Court in respect of the open spaces which are reserved for gardens, parks, playgrounds, recreational spaces, maidans, no-development zones, pavements, roads and Carriageways."
4. On 8th January 2003, Rule was issued by this Court and the writ petition was directed to be heard along with Writ Petition No. 200 of 2002. A prayer was made on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 for vacation of interim relief granted by the order dated 31st July 2002. The Court observed that there was no good ground to vacate interim relief granted earlier and ordered that the earlier interim order would continue until further orders.
5. For over a decade, certain orders came to be made on the writ petition which we need not refer to in detail.
5901-ial12380-2021 in wp1152-2002 Ultimately, the writ petition was heard by this Court on 25th July 2014 (cor. Chief Justice and M.S. Sanklecha, J.). The order passed on 25th July 2014 reads as follows:
" This writ petition has been filed by the NGO to save the open green spaces in the city of Mumbai. Since large areas of open spaces are encroached upon and slums have come up, open spaces are not actually available to citizens. In order to allow implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Schemes, the Government issued a Notification dated 3 June 1992 to provide that where slums have come up on lands which are reserved for green open spaces like play ground or recreation ground, 1/3rd of the land be used for the purpose for which the land is reserved, another 1/3rd of the land be used for constructing rehab tenements for the slums dwellers and remaining 1/3rd be permitted to be utilized by the developer for the constructing free-sale component.
2. This policy decision contained in the Government Notification dated 3 June 1992 has been challenged in the present petition, which is in the nature of public interest litigation.
By order dated 31 July 2002, this Court directed:
'Until further orders, no new rehabilitation scheme sanctioned without the permission of this Court in respect of the open spaces which are reserved for gardens, parks, playgrounds, recreational spaces, maidans, no-development zones, pavements, roads and carriageways.' The restrain order is, thus, in force for last 12 years.
3. At the last hearing of this writ petition, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General, who was requested to assist the Court, this Court had suggested to the learned counsel for parties and the learned Advocate General to explore the possibility of resolving the deadlock which has been created. On the one hand, permitting the policy in the Government impugned Notification to be implemented would mean the citizens losing green open spaces, (which were reserved for gardens etc.) to the extent of 67%. On the other hand, in the present situation even 33% of the land is not available as open green spaces because the entire land is occupied by slum dwellers.
4. At the hearing today, Mr. Srivastav, the Secretary, Urban Development Department has submitted that the State Government would devise schemes/incentives in order to free 6 901-ial12380-2021 in wp1152-2002 up the encroached RG/PG open spaces, but that practical compulsions may make it difficult to completely exclude some extent of in situ rehabilitation.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and the learned Advocate General, we clarify that the interim order dated 31 July 2002 shall not come in the way of the State Government making any new scheme or evolving new policy in this behalf. However, any such policy or scheme shall not be implemented, unless it is placed on the record of this proceeding and for a period of four weeks from the date of placing the same on the record of this proceeding.
6. At this stage, Mr. Vimal Shah, the President of the Maharashtra Chamber Housing Industries submits that there are many slum rehabilitation scheme, which do not involve reduction in the area of open green space, but still the developers are required to move this Court for permission, where the playground or recreational area is required to be relocated. It is submitted that where no reduction in the area of green space is involved, the developer should not be required to approach this Court.
7. Apropos the above submission, Mr. Dwarkadas, learned senior counsel for the SRA invites our attention to Regulation 11(4) of the Development Control Regulations (DCR), which reads as under: -
'11(4) Shifting and/or interchanging the purpose of designations/reservations: - In the case of specific designations/ reservations in the Development Plan, the Commissioner, with the consent of interested persons may shift, interchange the designation/reservation in the same or/on adjoining lands/building, to which an access is available or has to be provided and the same is not encumbered provided that the area of such designation/reservation is not reduced.' The learned counsel submits that in view of the above Regulation, SRA is ready to consider the application for permitting the developer to shift, interchange the designation/reservation in the same or/on adjoining lands/building to which an access is available or has to be provided and the same is not encumbered provided that the area of such designation/reservation is not reduced.
8. Mr. Chinoy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that in each case care has to be taken to see not only that area is not reduced but also that there is contiguity and public access to such open green space and that the petitioner should be heard every time, if any such permission is sought by the developer and the petitioner 7 901-ial12380-2021 in wp1152-2002 should get an opportunity to examine whether all safeguards are provided. It is submitted that if SRA is permitted to exercise powers under Regulation 11(4) of the DCR on its own, without any judicial intervention, the petitioner will not get any opportunity to object to any improper exercise of the power in an individual case.
9. Having heard learned counsel for parties, we are of the view that interests of justice would be served if it is directed, and it is accordingly directed that-
(i) When any developer approached SRA under Regulation 11(4) of DCR, SRA shall take all the necessary undertakings, which are presently required to be given by the developer to this Court and shall also make the developer to provide all safeguards which are being imposed by this Court as conditions of the order. A copy of the application shall also be furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner will be permitted to have a site inspection and lodge its objections/suggestions, if any, to SRA, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of intimation from SRA/developer. Original undertakings on affidavit shall be filed in the Registry of this Court and the same shall be placed on record of this proceeding.
(ii) If objections/suggestions which may be made by the petitioner are taken care of by the developer, there will be no need for any party to move this Court. But if SRA and/or the developer do not accept the objections/suggestions of the petitioner, then the developer shall move this Court by filing notice of motion in the present proceeding.
(iii) If the petitioner does not raise any objection to reallocation of the reserved land, SRA will grant permission under Regulation 11(4) to the developer, if all conditions of the said Regulation are fulfilled and if the developer gives all the undertakings and safeguards as aforesaid. There upon the interim order dated 31 July 2002 shall not come in the way of sanctioning the plan.
(iv) If the developer hands over vacant and peaceful possession of the reserved land to the Planning Authority, SRA will permit the developer to use the FSI for such reservation in accordance with the relevant Development Control Regulation and it will not be necessary for the developer to move this Court for modification of the interim order dated 31 July 2002.
We make it clear that the directions contained herein are confined to the applications under Regulation 11(4) of the DCR only in cases where the area of open green spaces 8 901-ial12380-2021 in wp1152-2002 is not going to be reduced, but request is going to be made only for relocation or realignment of such green spaces.
10. Stand over to 22 August 2014."
6. Pursuant to the observations made in paragraph 5 of the aforesaid order, the Development Control & Promotion Regulations, 2034 (hereafter "DCR-2034", for short) was formulated on 8th May 2018. The same was to come into force one month after publication in the Government Gazette. DCR- 2034 was gazetted on 1st September 2018 (with some provisions notified later, on 13th November 2018). It is also not in dispute that DCR-2034 was placed on record of the writ petition by the advocate for the respondent no. 2 on 13th December 2018. Thus, in terms of the restraint imposed by paragraph 5 of the order dated 25th July 2014, DCR-2034 became implementable with effect from 12th January 2019.
7. The petitioners did not take any step for obtaining an extension of the restraining order so as to prevent DCR-2034 from becoming implementable for reasons undisclosed.
8. By an order dated 18th July 2019, the writ petition was unfortunately dismissed for non-prosecution by a Division Bench of this Court although the writ petition was also listed before another Division Bench. Unaware of the fact that the writ petition had been dismissed for non-prosecution, no application for recalling the order dated 18th July 2019 was immediately filed by the petitioners. Ultimately, Interim Application (L) No. 4365 of 2020 was filed in the writ petition seeking recall of the order dated 18th July 2019.
9901-ial12380-2021 in wp1152-2002
9. On 6th April 2021, a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Chief Justice) was a member had the occasion to consider such application. The operative part of the order passed on 6th April 2021 reads as follows:
"7. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and on consideration of the submissions made in support of the prayers for recall and restoration of the writ petition, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown for recall of the order dated 18th July 2019 as well as for restoration of Writ Petition No. 1152 of 2002 to its original file and number. We are also of the view that cause shown for the delay in filing the application for recall is sufficient and, therefore, such delay ought to be condoned. It is ordered accordingly. The order dated 18th July 2019 stands recalled upon condonation of delay, with the result that Writ Petition No. 1152 of 2002 is restored to its original file and number.
8. It is also found that interim order had been passed on the writ petition which was subsisting on 18th July 2019. With the order of dismissal being passed, such interim order stood automatically vacated. We make it clear that if any action has been taken by the respondents after dismissal of the writ petition on 18th July 2019, the same shall remain unaffected by reason of this order recalling the order dated 18th July 2019 and restoring the writ petition to its original file and number. We, however, reimpose such interim order and direct that the same shall be operative for a further period of four months from date or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
9. Writ Petition No. 1152 of 2002 shall be listed for hearing on 9th June 2021."
(emphasis ours)
10. Upon restoration of this writ petition to its original file and number, the petitioners have filed an interim application seeking amendment thereof being the one under consideration now.
11. Since the application for amendment was opposed by the respondents, by an order dated 2nd September 2021 10 901-ial12380-2021 in wp1152-2002 affidavits were directed to be exchanged. Also, the interim order passed on 6th April 2021 was re-imposed and the same was directed to continue till the end of January 2022. By a further order dated 31st January 2022, the interim order passed earlier was extended till 31st March 2022.
12. After exchange of affidavits, the interim application for amendment has been listed for consideration, inter alia, with Interim Application (L) No. 28993 of 2021.
13. By filing the amendment application, the petitioners essentially seek two-fold relief. First, to have the first petitioner substituted by an entity known as NGO Alliance for Governance and Renewal ("NAGAR") being a public charitable trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 as also a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is averred in the application that the first petitioner has since, in or around 2013, merged with NAGAR. The other amendment that is sought to be incorporated relates to a challenge to regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of DCR-2034.
14. Interim Application (L) No. 28993 of 2021 is at the instance of NAREDCO West Foundation (hereafter "NAREDCO", for short) which claims to be an autonomous self-regulatory body under the aegis of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India. It is further claimed that NAGAR is the apex national body for real estate industry formed with the mandate to induce transparency and ethics in real estate business and to transform the unorganized Indian real estate 11 901-ial12380-2021 in wp1152-2002 sector into a matured and globally competitive business sector. The prayers in the application are for:
a. impleadment of NAREDCO as a respondent in the writ petition;
b. direction to treat the application as a counter/reply to Interim Application (L) No. 12380 of 2021;
c. clarification that the order dated 6th April 2021 (extended vide order dated 21st September 2021) does not apply to Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under the provisions of DCR-2034;
d. clarification that pendency of the writ petition and orders passed therein do not restrain the respondent no.2 from receiving or processing any application/proposal for implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under the provisions of DCR- 2034; and e. modification of the orders dated 31st July 2014 and 6th April 2021.
15. We have heard Mr. Shiraz Rustomjee, learned senior advocate for the petitioners in support of the application for amendment, Dr. Milind Sathe, learned senior advocate for the respondent no. 2 and Mr. Pravin Samdani, learned senior advocate for NAREDCO.
16. Although Dr. Sathe and Mr. Samdani have advanced arguments to resist the prayer for amendment of the writ petition by submitting that the petitioners ought to institute a fresh writ petition to challenge any of the provisions of DCR-
12901-ial12380-2021 in wp1152-2002 2034, we are of the clear view that the amendments, prayed for by the petitioners, ought to be allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. We are also of the view that the public interest litigation having been instituted to ensure that the open spaces in the city of Mumbai, which have been reserved for play-ground, recreational grounds, etc., are not used/utilized for redevelopment of slums and/or rehabilitation of slum dwellers, the challenge to the relevant regulation of DCR-2034 sought to be incorporated in the writ petition by way of an amendment would not change the nature and character of the concern expressed in the writ petition, as originally instituted. That apart, DCR-2034 is a subsequent development which could not have been challenged earlier. In such view of the matter, we make an order in terms of prayer
(a) of Interim Application (L) No. 12380 of 2021.
17. Amendments be carried out by two weeks from date. Re-verification is dispensed with. Amended copy of the writ petition be served on the respondents within one week thereafter.
18. Interim Application (L) No. 12380 of 2021 stands disposed of. No costs.
19. While opposing Interim Application (L) No. 12380 of 2021, Mr. Samdani has contended that the petitioners by amending the writ petition are seeking to incorporate a challenge to a provision of DCR-2034 which is a piece of delegated legislation. Citing a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Janhit Manch & Anr. Vs. State of 13 901-ial12380-2021 in wp1152-2002 Maharashtra & Ors.,1 Mr. Samdani has contended that framing of Development Control Regulations and/or amendments thereof are legislative functions; also, that the Development Control Regulations, framed under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereafter "MRTP Act", for short) are delegated legislation and that such regulations made under the statute have the efficacy of a statute, i.e., as if the same have been enacted specifically under the MRTP Act. Reference was further made by him to the decision of the Supreme Court in Janhit Manch Through its President Bhagvanji Raiyani & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others,2 which upheld the decision under challenge. Reliance was placed on a part of paragraph 9 where the Court observed as follows:
"9. ...The DCR, forming part of the development plans, are liable to be revised every 20 years, which is a circumstance that mitigates any plea of arbitrariness...."
20. Mr. Samdani has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Health for Millions Vs. Union of India & Ors.3. He invites our attention to paragraph 13 thereof, where it has been laid down that whenever a legislation, either primary or subordinate, is subjected to challenge on the ground that it is constitutionally invalid, the High Courts should be extremely loath to pass an interim order; also that, the operation of statutory provisions cannot be stultified by granting an interim order except when the Court is fully 1 2006 SCC OnLine Bom. 1145.
2(2019) 2 SCC 505.
3(2014) 14 SCC 496.
14901-ial12380-2021 in wp1152-2002 convinced that the particular enactment or the rule is ex facie unconstitutional and the factors like balance of convenience, irreparable injury and public interest are in favour of passing an interim order.
21. The aforesaid submissions have been advanced by Mr. Samdani predominantly for the purpose of obtaining a clarification from this Court that restoration of interim relief by the order dated 6th April 2021 does not revive the interim relief, as contemplated in paragraph 5 of the order dated 25 th July 2014, on the ground that it has lapsed.
22. Dr. Sathe appearing for respondent No. 2 has echoed the submission of Mr. Samdani.
23. Such submission of Mr. Samdani has been countered by Mr. Rustomjee by submitting that NAREDCO has not been impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition as yet and, therefore, has no locus standi to seek clarification of the interim order at this stage. It is the further contention of Mr. Rustomjee that at the stage of consideration of an application for amendment, the Court may not entertain the prayer for clarification of the interim order dated 6th April 2021. Finally, it is his contention that the Court ought to look to the justice that the situation demands. DCR-2034 makes insignificant cosmetic changes and is not intended to protect the open spaces which have been reserved and any dilution of the arrangements that are in place today based on the premise that the order dated 25th July 2014 is still in force would result in the affectation of rights of the citizens of Mumbai. The petitioners' challenge is not only confined to the relevant 15 901-ial12380-2021 in wp1152-2002 regulation of DCR-2034 but their concern is to preserve the open spaces with the intention of the same being used/utilized only to further the purpose for which the same has been reserved and not for rehabilitation of slum dwellers. Although the Court granted liberty to the respondent no. 1 to come out with a new policy, DCR-2034 is like old wine in a new bottle with absolutely no significant changes. It is also his submission that the threat to open spaces from various quarters ought to be warded off by appropriate protection being granted by this Court.
24. Although Mr. Rustomjee is right in his contention that NAREDCO is yet to be made a respondent in the writ petition, we have considered it necessary to clarify the position with regard to the nature of interim relief that could be said to operate consequent to the order dated 6th April 2021.
25. Perusal of the said order would reveal that upon restoration of the writ petition to its original file and number, interim relief granted on the writ petition earlier, and which was subsisting on 18th July 2019 only had been re-imposed and not any other interim relief which had ceased to be in operation. It does not admit of any doubt that interim relief granted as in paragraph 5 of the order dated 25th July 2014 was for a limited period, i.e., four weeks from the date of placing of the policy or scheme on the record of the proceeding. As has been observed above, the period of four weeks ended on 12th January 2019, whereafter the petitioners made no attempt to have the order of interim relief extended. On and from 12th January 2019, interim relief as ordered vide 16 901-ial12380-2021 in wp1152-2002 paragraph 5 automatically lapsed. The order dated 6th April 2021 did not revive such lapsed order. What was re-imposed is the interim directions forming part of paragraph 9 of the order dated 25th July 2014.
26. Even otherwise, despite DCR-2034 having come into force with effect from 1st September 2018, it was not implementable till 12th January 2019 which was a situation brought about by paragraph 5 of the order dated 25 th July 2014. One cannot ignore that DCR-2034 is a piece of delegated legislation. Without DCR-2034 being subjected to challenge, its operation cannot remain stayed. In Health for Millions (supra), the Supreme Court cautioned the High Courts to be extremely loath to stultify the operation of a statutory provision by an interim order. The order dated 6th April 2021 did not and cannot be read to mean that it sought to stay the operation of DCR-2034 without the same being under challenge.
27. The situation, therefore, is such that clarification of the nature as prayed by Mr. Samdani is indeed called for. We, therefore, clarify that interim relief as is referred to in paragraph 5 of the order dated 25th July 2014 ceased to be in operation with effect from 12th January 2019, and also that the order dated 6th April 2021 did not revive such interim relief. The parties shall be at liberty to act in accordance with law based on the said clarification. We, however, make it clear that such clarification shall not preclude the petitioners to seek further interim relief after the amended writ petition is filed in the department and served on the parties.
17901-ial12380-2021 in wp1152-2002
28. Since the prayer for impleadment of NAREDCO as well as other relief claimed by it is vehemently opposed by Mr. Rustomjee, we grant liberty to the petitioners to file reply affidavit to Interim Application (L) No. 28993 of 2021 by two weeks; rejoinder thereto may be filed by NAREDCO by a week thereafter.
29. Interim Application (L) No. 28993 of 2021 shall be listed for further consideration four weeks hence along with the writ petition and all pending chamber summonses/notices of motion on that date.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL GANESH
GANESH KULKARNI
KULKARNI Date:
2022.03.03
19:55:54
+0530
18