Bombay High Court
Indian Church Trustees Through Its ... vs State Of Maharashtra And 3 Ors on 29 November, 2022
Author: S.G. Dige
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, S.G. Dige
ppn 1 906.ia-1867.19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1867 OF 2019
IN
REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.87 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2197 OF 1998
Indian Church Trustees & Anr. .. Applicants
In the matter of
Indian Church Trustees & Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
---
Mr.Soli Cooper, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Ankur Shah, Yohan Cooper and
Mr.Jatin Sheth for applicant/petitioner.
Mr.Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Mr.Joshua Abhay Patnigere for the
applicant/petitioner in IA/1867/2019 in RPWL/87/2019.
Mr.Milind More, Addl. Government Pleader and Mr.Himanshu Takke,
AGP for the respondent no.1-State in both petitions.
Mr.Anil Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh,
Ms.Rupali Adhate i/by Mr.Sunil Sonawane for the respondent no.2 in
RPWL/59/2019-MCGM.
Mr.Rajan Jaykar a/w Mr.Vaibhav Bajpai a/w Ms.Dimple Merchant,
Ms.Juhi Shah i/by M/s.I.V. Merchant and Co. for the respondent no.3 in
both the petitions -for monitoring committee.
Mr.Y.R.Mishra a/w Ms.Rina Mishra, Mr.Upendra Lokegaonkar for the
respondent no.4 in both the petitions.
Ms.Indrani Malkani, representative of the respondent no.3 committee
present in Court.
Mr.Imran Khan, Junior Engineer, 'D' Ward - Maintenance Dept. -MCGM
present in Court.
::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2022 07:21:30 :::
ppn 2 906.ia-1867.19.doc
---
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &
S.G. DIGE, JJ.
DATE : 29th November 2022 P.C.:-
. By this interim application, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 502 days in filing the review petition.
2. The application for condonation of delay is opposed by Mr.Sakhare, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation on the ground that the applicant was fully aware of the proceedings in Writ Petition No.2197 of 1998 or Writ Petition No.1963 of 2000 all throughout. He submitted that delay of 502 days is not explained by the applicant in the affidavit-in-support of the notice of motion.
3. We have perused the averments made by the applicant in paragraphs 7 to 9 of the interim application. In our view, the delay is explained satisfactorily.
4. We are inclined to accept the reasons mentioned in interim application explaining the delay. Interim application is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No order as to costs.
S.G. DIGE, J. R.D. DHANUKA, J.
::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2022 07:21:30 :::