Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Sheetal D Mishra vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through The ... on 25 March, 2026

Author: A. S. Gadkari

Bench: A. S. Gadkari

2026:BHC-OS:7661-DB

                 ssm                                                        58-wp4853.2025.doc

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                   ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 4853 OF 2025

            Sheetal D. Mishra                                       .....Petitioner

                      Vs.

            The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.             .....Respondents
                            ____________________________________

            Sheetal D. Mishra Petitioner-in-person present.
            Shri. Prashant Kamble, AGP for the Respondent No.1-State.
            Mr. Rahul Karnik for the Respondent No.4.
            Adv. Tanaya Patankar a/w Adv. Kartik Tiwari i/by Lakshyavedhi Legal for
            the Respondent No.5.
                             ____________________________________

                                                    CORAM :   A. S. GADKARI AND
                                                              KAMAL KHATA, JJ.

DATE : 25th MARCH, 2026. P.C.:-

1) In our opinion, the Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 do not fall within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore Writ of Certiorari against them for cancellation of Development Agreement dated 29th July, 2025, is not maintainable. Even otherwise, the Petitioner cannot exercise her right on behalf of the Society and independently seek cancellation of the said Development Agreement.
2) Reliance is placed on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Daman Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (1985) 2 SCC 463 .
1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:31:38 :::
                   ssm                                                        58-wp4853.2025.doc

             3)                If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the decision taken by the

Society, she has a legal remedy of raising a dispute under Section 91 of the MCS Act to approach the concerned Authority constituted therein by filing an appropriate Application.
4) Considering our view on the subject, the Petitioner, appearing in-person, seeks leave to withdraw Petition with liberty to avail the said remedy.

4.1) Leave and liberty granted.

5) Disposed off as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty.




                         (KAMAL KHATA, J.)                          (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

            Digitally signed
            by SANJIV
SANJIV      SHARNAPPA
SHARNAPPA   MASHALKAR
MASHALKAR   Date:
            2026.03.30
            18:57:35 +0530




                                                                                                     2/2



                     ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2026                   ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:31:38 :::