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 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Muktadwar Unnati Mandal, Erandol, ... vs The Union Of India And Others on 20 January, 2016

Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge

Bench: S.S. Shinde, Ravindra V. Ghuge

                                              1




                                                                                
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                        
                  WRIT PETITION NO.8436 OF 2014
       (MUKTADWAR UNNATI MANDAL, ERANDOL, JALGAON VS. THE 
                   UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS)
                               WITH




                                                       
                   WRIT PETITION NO.214 OF 2016
     (SATPUDA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL VIDYAWADI, THROUGH 
                     ITS OFFICE SECRETARY)




                                             
    Mr.V.J.Dixit, Senior Counsel h/f Mr.V.B.Patil, Advocate for the 
    petitioners.
    Mr.U.H.Bhogle, AGP for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 

Mr.A.G.Talhar, Advocate for respondent No.1.

( CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.) DATE : 20/01/2016 PER COURT :

1. Heard.
2. So far prayer clause "B" in WP No.8436/2014 and in WP No.214/2016 is concerned, we are not inclined to grant the said relief.

So far as prayer clause "C" in both the writ petitions is concerned, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners have already approached the respondents by filing representations. We do not express any opinion about filing of such representation or maintainability of the same, however, if such representation is already filed praying therein for allowing the khs/Jan.2016/8436 ::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:47:11 ::: 2 petitioners to use the said building for some other purpose, it is for the State Government to take decision on it keeping in view the relevant government policy and procedure.

3. However, in case, such representations are filed, the respondents to take appropriate decision in accordance with the procedure/rules on the said representations, as expeditiously as possible, however, within 3 (three) months from today. So far prayer clause "D" in both the petitions is concerned, this Court, while disposing of similar WP No.1215/2015, granted one year's time to deposit the amount.

4. In the result, we pass the following order :-

In WP No.8436/2014, the petitioners shall pay the remaining amount of Rs. 11,63,963/- (Rs.Eleven lac sixty three thousand nine hundred sixty three only) with simple interest @ 6% p.a. within a period of one year in four equal quarterly installments.
The respondents are entitled to withdraw Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.
Three lac only) deposited by the petitioners.
In WP No.214/2016, the petitioners shall pay the entire amount mentioned in the notice with simple interest @ 6% p.a. within a period of one year in four equal quarterly installments to the khs/Jan.2016/8436 ::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:47:11 ::: 3 concerned respondent.

5. With the above observations, both petitions stand disposed of, however, there shall be no order as to costs.

           ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )               ( S.S. SHINDE, J. )
                               
                              
      
   






    khs/Jan.2016/8436




      ::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2016               ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:47:11 :::