All Cases

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.101 OF 2020 1. Gujar Raosaheb Gajare ] Age: 60 Years, Occ: Agri ] 2. Vasant Raosaheb Gajare ] Age: 55 Years, Occ: Agri, ] Both R/o. Shelve, Tal. Pandharpur ] Dist. Solapur. ] Appellants Versus 1. State of Maharashtra ] Through Gramin (Rural) ] Police Station, Pandharpur. ] 2. Ananda Ananta Shinde ] Age. Years, Occ. Service, ] Gramin (Rural) ] Police Station, Pandharpur, ] Dist. Solapur. ] Respondents Mr. Tushar N. Sonawane, for the Appellants. Mr. A.R. Kapadnis, Additional Public Prosecutor, for Respondent-State. Police Head Constable-Mr. R.T. Jadhav, Pandharpur Rural Police Station present. ….. …. CORAM : PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2020. P.C: Challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 10th December, 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur by which Criminal Miscellaneous Application bearing No.1343 of 2019 for anticipatory bail preferred by the appellants came to be rejected since the offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short 'Atrocity Act') according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, creates a bar under section 18 of the said Act. The appellants have been booked under sections 143, 147, 149, 353, 332, 323, 504, 506, 188, 229 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C') and under sections 3 (1) (r) (5), 3 (2) (va) of the Atrocity Act. Briefly stated the facts are that on 6th November, 2019 around 1.00 a.m, respondent No.2 who was attached as Head Constable to Pandharpur Police Station had been to the house of the appellants to execute a warrant issued by J.M.F.C, Malshiras. A person sleeping in front of the house, after noticing the Police party, started abusing. Despite informing the appellants that it was a Police party who had been to their house in discharge of their official duties, the appellants created hurdle by raising shouts and, therefore, warrant could not be executed. It is alleged that respondent No.2 belongs to 'Pardhi' community of which the appellants were aware and, therefore, not only they obstructed respondent No.2 from performing his public duty but they also abused on his caste by saying; " pardhya tula baghato, amhas pakdun neto ka, tuzya viruddha me khota gunha dakhal karto, sarkari gadi jalun takto, tuzi nokrihi ghalvito" It is further alleged that one of accused grabbed the uniform of respondent No.2. Subsequently, the accused made their escape good. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order observed that, prima facie, the allegations of commission of offence under the Atrocities Act are made out from F.I.R since respondent No.2 was abused on his caste by the accused who knew respondent No.2 being a member of Pardhi community. Thus, it is observed that there is bar under section 18 and, therefore, the application under section 438 cannot be entertained. This appeal is already covered with an earlier judgment and order passed by this Court. This Court in Criminal Appeal No.1752 of 2019 arising out of the same crime, by a judgment and order dated 10th January, 2020 allowed the appeal of one of the accused Mohan Pandurang Gajare. It is apparent from the record that there is nothing to indicate that the appellants do not belong to schedule caste or schedule tribe communities. It is equally important to note that the incident alleged to have been occurred around 1.00 a.m within the premises of the house of the appellants and, therefore, it cannot be termed to be a place within public view. The most important aspect is that respondent No.2 had been to the house of the appellants to execute a warrant in discharge of his official duty and, therefore, there is no question of the appellants extending threats to respondent No.2 or to influence him in any manner whatsoever. There is even no question of respondent No.2 getting cowed down by the appellants. Even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments that the appellants abused respondent No.2 on his caste by using word ' Pardhi' , as already stated, there is nothing on record to show that the appellants themselves belong to higher caste. If respondent No.2 had been to execute the warrant, it is highly improbable that the appellants would abuse the Police on his caste especially when he was with Police team comprising several Police men. 4/5 Thus, in view of the aforesaid observations, the impugned order needs to be quashed by allowing the appeal. Now, to the order; : O R D E R : [1] The appeal is allowed. [2] In the event of their arrest, the appellants be released on executing a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur. [3] The appellants shall not, in any manner whatsoever, influence the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly. [4] The appellants shall attend the concerned Police station on every Friday between 3.00 p.m and 6.00 p.m till filing of the charge-sheet. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. [PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4723 OF 2005 (For Leave to Appeal) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra .....Appellant. V/s Yusuf Hasan Mulla & Ors. ..... Respondents. Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for the State. Mr. C.G. Patil i/b S.S. Patwardhan for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 & 6. ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 21 st August, 2007 P.C.: Heard the learned APP for the State and the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 & 6. Appellant - State takes exception to the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ajara whereby the accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under section 153-B and 143 of the Indian Penal code. International one day Cricket match was held at Sharijah on 23/10/1991 between India and Pakistan and, in the said match, the Indian Cricket Team was defeated by Pakistan and it is alleged that the accused alongwith others celebrated defeat of the Indian Cricket Team at the hands of Pakistani Cricket Team and they shouted slogans and burst fire crackers. The trial court has considered the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not established its case against the accused. I have perused the impugned judgment and order as also notes of evidence shown to me by the learned APP for the State. In my view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1995 SC 1985 squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The Apex Court in the said judgment has observed that raising of some slogans, a couple of times by two individuals, without anything more, did not constitute any threat to the Government of India as by law established nor could the same give rise to feelings of enmity of hatred among different communities or religious or other groups. Leave is therefore refused. Appeal is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 5: Digitally signed by Mandira Salgaonkar Date: 2021.03.02 17:16:24 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1001 OF 2021 Srinivasan Ravindran Sarma ] Residing at A/105, Supernal Gardens, ] Dhokali Naka, Kolshet Road, ] Thane (West) – 400 607 ] Petitioner VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra ] ] 2. Mrs.Neeta Srinivasan Sarma ] Residing at 1st Floor, 'B' Wing, ] 101, Violet Apartment, Near Janta ] Sahakari Bank, Murbad Road ] Syndicate, Kalyan (West)-421301 ] Respondents Ms.Priyanka S. Sangare for the Petitioner. Ms.Sana Hakim for Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 present in Court. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1/State. PSI Manjusha V. Shelar, MFC Police Station present. CORAM : S.S.SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ. DATED : 01st MARCH, 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.S.SHINDE, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally. It is common contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondent No.2 that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and to that effect, consent terms are placed on record before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 had tendered across the bar, affidavit of respondent No.2. Same is taken on record. In the said affidavit, details of the settlement are averred. Respondent No.2 is present before the Court. She has been identified by her counsel. She has stated that it is her voluntary act to enter into such settlement and pray for quashing of the impugned FIR and proceedings arising out of the said FIR, in view of the consent terms filed before the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another 1 has held that, the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and 1 2012 (10) SCC 303 extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. It has also held that inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute, respondent No.2 is not going to participate in the said proceedings and chances of the conviction of the petitioner would be bleak and remote and, therefore, further continuation of the proceedings in RCC No.730 of 2017 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalyan for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 495, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, would be an exercise in futility and would tantamount to abuse of process of the Court. In that view of the matter, to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the court, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings bearing RCC No.730 of 2017 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalyan for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 495, 504 of the Indian Penal Code are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) M.M.Salgaonkar

Order - Status 4: Chitra Sonawane IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2924 OF 2021 Vivian Felix Gonsalves …. Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …. Respondents. … Mr.A.M. Saraogi for the petitioner. Mr.Ravi Kadam, AGP for State. Miss Savita Suryavanshi for respondent no.2. CORAM : K.K. TATED & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 17th JULY, 2021. [Through Video Conferencing] P.C. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging order dated 24th May 2021 passed under the provisions of Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act ('the said Act' for short). … Learned AGP Mr.Ravi Kadam appearing on behalf of the State submits that alternate efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner u/s 154 of the said Act. Considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the fact that in the present matter when this Court called upon the learned Advocate for the petitioner, as to how much amount he can pay, to which, he submitted that he require some time to take instructions from his client. On his request matter to appear on board on 20th July 2021. Hence, the following order is passed. a) Matter to appear on board on 20th July, 2021. [PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.] [K. K. TATED, J.]

Order - Status 6: 41 wp2924-21.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2924 OF 2021 Vivian Flexi Gonsalves ..... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ….. Respondents Mr.Amit Dubey i/b Mr.Ashok Saraogi for the Petitioner Mr.Ravi Kadam, A.G.P. for the State Ms.Savita Suryavanshi for the Respondent no.2 Mr.Anil D'souza for the Respondent nos.3 to 6 CORAM: K.K.TATED & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : JULY 20, 2021 P.C. . Heard. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that his Arguing Counsel A.M.Saraogi is not available. Hence, he requires some time. The learned counsel for the Respondent no.3 to 6 submit that they have not received copy of Petition. He submits that Petitioner may be directed to provide copy of Petition to them. Hence, the following order is passed: TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2021.07.22 12:43:52 +0530 a. Petitioner is directed to serve copy of Petitioner on all the Respondents on or before 23.07.2021 and fle Affdavit of Service to that effect, failing which they have to pay cost to each and every Respondents. b. Matter to appear on board on 27.07.2021. (PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2924 OF 2021 .… .… Vivian Felix Gonsalves ] Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra through Deputy Registrar ] ] Cooperative Societies,Vasai & Ors. ] ] Respondents. Mr.A.M. Saraogi for Petitioner. Mr.R.P. Kadam, AGP for State. Ms Savit Suryavanshi for respondent no.2. Mr.Anil D'souza for respondent nos.3 to 6. CORAM : K.K. TATED & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 27th JULY, 2021. [Through Video Conferencing] P.C. Heard learned Counsel for parties. At the request of learned Advocate for the petitioner, matter to appear on board on 6th August 2021. [PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.] [K. K. TATED, J.]

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2924 OF 2021 Vivian Felix Gonsalves ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra Thru Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Vasai And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.K. TATED & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ DATE : 6th August, 2021 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 11/08/2021 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2924 OF 2021 Vivian Felix Gonsalves ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra Thru Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Vasai And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.K. TATED & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ DATE : 11th August, 2021 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 12/08/2021 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2924 OF 2021 Vivian Felix Gonsalves ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra Thru Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Vasai And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.K. TATED & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ DATE : 12th August, 2021 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 18/08/2021 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: 27.2924.21-wp.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2924/2021 BASAVRAJ GURAPPA PATIL signed by BASAVRAJ GURAPPA PATIL Date: 2021.08.23 13:00:00 +0530 Digitally Vivian Flexi Gonsalves ….. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….. Respondents None for the Petitioner Mr. R. P. Kadma, AGP for the State Mr. Ashish Suryavanshi I/b. Savita Suryavanshi for Respondent No.2. CORAM: K.K.TATED & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 18, 2021 P.C. 1 None for the Petitioner. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 seeks some time. 2 It is to be noted that, in the present proceedings, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 24.05.2021 passed by Respondent No.1 under the provisions of section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Against the said order, revision is maintainable under section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960. 3 Place the matter on board on 31.08.2021. (PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 18: 31 wp2924-21.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2924 OF 2021 Vivian Flexi Gonsalves …. Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ….. Respondents None for the petitioner Mr.R.P.Kadam, A.G.P. for the State Ms.Sarita Suryavanshi for the respondent no.2 Mr.S.S.Redekar i/b Mr.Anil D'souza for the respondent nos.3 to 6 CORAM: K.K.TATED & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 31, 2021 P.C. . None for the Petitioner. As no one appeared on behalf of Petitioner, Registry is directed to place the matter on board on 03.09.2021 for dismissal. (PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.) Mohite 1/1 Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2021.09.02 19:08:36 +0530

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2924 OF 2021 CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Digitally signed by CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Date: 2021.09.06 11:00:26 +0530 Vivian F. Gonsalves ] Petitioner. … … Vs. The State of Maharashtra ] Respondents. None for petitioner. Ms Savita Suryavanshi for Respdt.no.2. Mr.R. P. Kadam, AGP for State. CORAM : K.K. TATED & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2021. P.C. 1 None for the petitioner. Ms Savita Suryavanshi, learned Advocate for respondent. The office note shows that no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 18.8.21 and 31.8.2021 and today also. This Court by order dated 31.8.2021 directed Registry to keep the matter on board under caption 'for dismissal'. [PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.] [K. K. TATED, J.]

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPW) NO. 274 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3464 OF 2013 Office Notes, Office Memorandam of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders None for Applicant Ms. Saloni M. Ghule, I/by Sanjiv Sawant for R. No. 1 Mr. Deepak Thakare, APP for State CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 22nd APRIL, 2016 P.C. None for the applicant. 2] This is an application for early hearing of Writ Petition No. 3464/2013 preferred by the original petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitionerhusband on instructions submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 26.3.2013 her client is regularly paying the maintenance of Rs. 10,000/ to the applicantwife. 3] In view of the same, I find that there is no urgency in hearing the petition expeditiously. The application is disposed off with liberty to the applicantwife to file fresh application for appropriate reliefs, if the petitionerhusband commits any breach of orders dated 13.9.2013 and 17.6.2014. 4] The application is disposed off in the aforesaid terms. (A. S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 3: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 370 OF 2007 Jayesh Bhagwandas Thakkar. ... Applicant. V/s. Mr.Rajkumar Arjundas Garwada and another. ... Respondents. S.R.Chitnis, senior counsel with H.S.Venegavkar for the applicant. S.D.Mogre for respondent No.1. Ms.M.H.Mhatre, APP for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 29th September 2007. P.C.: ---- . Heard. Both parties submit that the possibility of settlement can be explored. However, since the present applicant is in custody, talks for settlement cannot take place. In this view of the matter, in order to offer an opportunity to the parties to settle their dispute out of Court, the present applicant, viz., Jayesh Bhagwandas Thakkar is released on temporary bail for a period of 15 days from his actual release on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of his real brother, viz., Jitendrakumar Bhagwandas Thakkar. . Stand over to 8th October, 2007. JUDGE

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.370 OF 2007 Jayeshkumar Bhagwandas Thakkar ..Applicant V/s. Rajkumar Arjundas Garwada & Anr. ..Respondents ---- Mr.H.S.Venegavkar for the applicant. Mr.S.D.Mogre for respondent no.1. Ms.S.D.Shinde APP for the State. CORAM : V.C.DAGA,J Date : 22.10.2007. PC Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Counsel for respondent no.1 as well as learned APP for the State. The parties have tendered the consent terms duly signed by the applicant and the respondent no.2. The applicant and respondent no.2 both are present in persons. The consent terms are also counter-signed by the respective Advocates appearing for the respective parties. The consent terms are taken on record and marked "X" for identification. The undertaking given in respect of consent terms and statements made therein are accepted. On the joint motion made by the learned Advocates for the parties, Criminal Revision Application stands disposed off in terms of consent terms subject to compliance thereof. In the result, offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compounded subject to compliance of terms and conditions in the undertaking. Bail bond of the applicant is cancelled. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Private Secretary of this Court as a true copy. (V.C.DAGA,J)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 In Writ Petition 132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Soc Sanpada Thr Abdul Samad Hasan Kazi ....PETITIONER V/S The Commissioner Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA, JJ DATE : 26th August, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 03/10/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 In Writ Petition 132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Soc Sanpada Thr Abdul Samad Hasan Kazi ....PETITIONER V/S The Commissioner Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA, JJ DATE : 3rd October, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 17/11/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 In Writ Petition 132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Soc Sanpada Thr Abdul Samad Hasan Kazi ....PETITIONER V/S The Commissioner Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA, JJ DATE : 17th November, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 24/11/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Society Sanpada …..Applicant Vs. MULEY SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO Digitally signed by MULEY SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO Date: 2022.11.28 10:32:04 +0530 The Commissioner Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. …..Respondents Mr. Sharique Nachan a/w Mr. Azeem Shaikh & Tanzila Kazi i/by Judicare Law Associates for Petitioner/Applicant. Mr. Tejas Dande for Respondent No.1. Ms. Sayli Patil i/by Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni for Respondnt No.2. Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for State. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & ARIF S. DOCTOR, JJ. DATE : 24 th NOVEMBER, 2022. P.C.:- The learned AGP seeks time to take instructions from the Police authorities. Place the matter on 16th December, 2022. (ARIF. S. DOCTOR, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2022 Tanzimul Muslimin Society Sanpada .Applicant IN THE MATTER OF Tanzimul Muslimin Society Sanpada .Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. .Respondents ----------- Mr.Sharique Nachan, Mr. Aman Khan, Mr. Wasim Karol i/b. Judicare Law Associates for the Applicant/Petitioner. Mr. Tejesh Dande for Respondent No.1-Corporation. Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni for Respondent No.2-CIDCO. Ms. M. P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6. CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ. DATE : 14 FEBRUARY 2023 P. C. . Time of one week is granted to the learned AGP to obtain instructions in terms of the order dated 24th November, 2022. The instructions shall be obtained prior to the next date of the proceedings. Stand over to 21st February, 2023. ( M. W. CHANDWANI, J. ) ( A. S. CHANDURKAR, J. )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.17568 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO.132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Society Sanpada, Navi Mumbai .. Applicant-Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Sharique Nachan, with Ms. Tanzila Kazi and Mr. Amaan Khan, i/by Judicare Law Associate, for the Applicant-Petitioner. Mr. Tejas Dande for Respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation. Mr. R.D. Soni, with Mr. Sujay Gawade and Ms. Mudita Pawar, i/by Shree & Co., for the Intervenor. Dr. Birendra B. Saraf, Advocate General, with Mr. P.P. Kakade and Ms. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 to 6-State. CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ DATE : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2023. ORAL ORDER : { Per A.S. Chandurkar, J. } In this Interim Application, preferred by the original petitioner in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, the following prayers have been made :- (a). This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to appoint a suitable officer as Nodal Officer or this Hon'ble Court itself be pleased to appoint any suitable officer from the departments of the respondents as a Nodal Officer to facilitate the construction of the Masjid on the said Plot bearing No.17A, Sector 8, Navi Mumbai as per the approved plan in accordance with law. (b). This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.6 to provide police protection for the construction of the Masjid at the said Plot bearing No.17A, Sector 8, Navi Mumbai." Writ Petition No.132 of 2021 was filed by the applicant raising a challenge to the communication dated 27th December 2018 issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, by which the applicant was informed that though on 17th November 2018, building permission had been granted by the Municipal Corporation, a likelihood of a law and order situation could arise if the construction was undertaken by the applicant. Hence, the Municipal Corporation temporarily stayed the building permission granted by it on 17th November 2018. In addition, the applicant prayed that the State of Maharashtra be directed to appoint a suitable officer as a Nodal Officer to facilitate the construction of a Masjid as per the approved plan. The aforesaid writ petition was decided on 31st January 2022. The impugned communication dated 27th December 2018 came to be set aside by observing that if the Municipal Corporation apprehended any law and order situation, it could seek necessary assistance from the local police station in that regard. The writ petition was accordingly allowed. However, the intervention application filed by Akhil Sanpada Sanskrutik Pratisthan came to be dismissed. By urging that the applicant, which was the original petitioner, was seeking implementation of the order dated 31 st January 2022 passed in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, this interim application has been filed. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that while allowing Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, this Court had set aside the communication dated 27 th December 2018 issued by the Municipal Corporation. As a result, the temporary stay that was imposed on the building permission on 17 th November 2018 stood vacated. It was thus incumbent upon the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai to provide police protection for such construction. It was also the responsibility of the authorities and especially the State Government to appoint a Nodal Officer to facilitate construction of a Masjid on a Plot No.17A, Sector 8, Navi Mumbai as per the approved plan. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.A. Ansari and Anr. Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. 1 and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Archana Nilesh Gore and Anr. (Applicant) in the matter between Archana Nilesh Gore and Anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. 2 , it was urged that notwithstanding the fact that the writ petition had been disposed of, this Court could consider entertaining the interim application in the disposed of writ petition as the applicant was seeking directions in the furtherance of the order passed in the writ petition. According to learned counsel, if the interim application was not 1 (2009) 2 SCC 164 2 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 12962 entertained, the applicant would be required to initiate fresh proceedings on account of inaction on the part of the authorities. The learned Advocate General for the non-applicant nos.3 to 6 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant no.1 joined issue and opposed the interim application on the ground that the relief sought in the interim application was not in furtherance of any directions issued in the writ petition, nor could it be said that the applicant was seeking implementation of the order passed therein. The issuance of the communication dated 14th April 2022 by the Police Authorities was justified for the reason that until certain factual aspects were verified by the said authority, further instructions could not be issued by that authority. The applicant had been called upon to submit relevant documents, on the basis of which further steps would be taken in the matter. It was thus urged that the interim application need not deserve consideration and the applicant could initiate appropriate proceedings for seeking the prayers made in the interim application. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor-Akhil Sanpada Sanskrutik Pratisthan submitted that the intervenors had filed Interim Application No.371 of 2022 seeking intervention in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, had been dismissed by the Court on 31st January 2022 while disposing of the writ petition. That order was challenged by the intervenor by filing proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by the order dated 9th May 2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that rejection of the intervention application was wrong. It was noted that the intervenor had challenged the building permission granted by the Competent Authority on 17th November 2018 by filing an appeal under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, (for short "Act of 1966"), which appeal was pending. A direction was issued that the proceedings pending before the State Government as well as before the Layout Committee would not be governed by the order passed in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021 on 31st January 2022. Despite that, the intervenor had not been impleaded in the present interim application and on that ground, the said application was liable to be rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having duly considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that the interim application does not deserve consideration. At the outset, we may note that prayer clause (a) in the interim application is ad verbatim prayer clause (b) in the writ petition, which reads as under :- "(b). This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate and suitable writ, direction and pass an order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondent no.3 to appoint a suitable officer as Nodal Officer to facilitate the construction of Masjid on the said Plot as per the approved plan, in accordance with law." Prayer clause (b) having been sought for in the writ petition and the same not having been granted while deciding the writ petition implies that the said prayer stands refused by this Court. A prayer which was made in the writ petition but not granted while disposing of the writ petition cannot be the subject matter of an interim application in the disposed of writ petition that is filed on the premise that the original petitioner seeks implementation of the directions issued in the writ petition. The remedy for seeking a prayer not granted in the writ petition would not be by way of an interim application in the disposed of writ petition. For that reason, prayer clause (a) in the interim application cannot be considered. Coming to prayer clause (b) in the interim application, which pertains to a direction to be issued to the Commissioner of Police to provide police protection for construction of the Masjid, it is seen that while disposing of Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, this Court had observed that if the Municipal Corporation apprehends any law and order situation, it could write to the local police station, which could then provide necessary assistance so as to maintain the law and order. Accordingly, on 13th April 2022, the Assistant Director, Town Planning Department of the Municipal Corporation wrote to the Police Commissioner that the applicant had made an application to it in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021. Acting on that communication, the office of the Police Commissioner – the 6th respondent, on 14th April 2022, sought certain information from the Municipal Commissioner with a copy thereof to the applicant. This, according to the applicant, was not permissible and amounted to the Police Authorities sitting in appeal over the civil rights that had accrued in favour of the applicant pursuant to the order passed in the writ petition. In other words, the applicant is aggrieved by issuance of the communication dated 14th April 2022 and has indicated that the said authority ought not to have required furnishing of the details that are mentioned in the communication dated 14th April 2022. It is thus apparent that if the applicant is aggrieved by the communication dated 14th April 2022 on the premise that the said authority was not justified in seeking such information, it would be necessary for the applicant to challenge that communication. As long as that communication operates, prayer clause (b) seeking direction to be issued to the respondent no.6 to provide police protection cannot be considered in the interim application that has been filed in a disposed of writ petition. Perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.A. Ansari and Anr. (Supra) indicates that a direction was issued by the High Court holding the petitioners therein entitled to be posted on a post in equivalent scale that was held by them with a further direction to pay them arrears of pay and allowances, if they were posted on a post of higher grade. The learned Single Judge issued the directions, as sought for, in a miscellaneous application in the disposed of writ petition. In appeal, the Division Bench held that the miscellaneous application was not maintainable since the writ petition had been disposed of. The order passed on that application was set aside by the Division Bench. In challenge to the order of the Division Bench, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when the proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of the writ petition, it is not open to the Court to re-open the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provides fresh cause of action. However, at the same time, there is no prohibition on a party applying for clarification, if the order is not clear and the party against whom it has been made is trying to take advantage as the order is couched in ambiguous or equivocal words. Since it was found that the miscellaneous application was filed for pursuing and getting implemented the relief granted in the writ petition, which was for placement in the appropriate grade, it was held that the miscellaneous application was maintainable. This decision has been followed in Archana Nilesh Gore and Anr. (Supra). As noted above, prayer clause (a) in the interim application cannot be granted since a similar prayer made in the writ petition was not granted when the writ petition was disposed of. As regards prayer clause (b), unless the communication dated 14th April 2022 issued by the 6th respondent is shown to have been erroneously issued, that relief cannot be granted. The prayers made in the interim application cannot be said to be the prayers made for clarification of the order or for implementing the relief granted in the writ petition. Such request for grant of police protection was under consideration of the 6th respondent and in that regard, factual information has been sought by it. If the petitioner is aggrieved by that communication, it would have to challenge the same, as entitlement to the same has not been decided in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021. Another pertinent aspect that requires mention is that the applicant was 21-IA-17568-2022.doc Dixit granted building permission on 17th November 2018 to undertake the construction of a Masjid. This building permission itself has been challenged by the intervenor by filing an appeal under Section 47 of the Act of 1966 before the State Government. It is stated that even today, the said proceedings are pending. Thus, unless the applicant is armed with building permission that has become final, the question of implementation of an order granting police protection with a view to implement the order granting building permission to construct Masjid cannot be considered in an interim application filed in a disposed of writ petition. Thus, for aforesaid reasons, the Interim Application stands rejected. The applicant is at liberty to take such steps as are permissible in law for seeking redressal of its grievance. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the prayers made in the interim application on merits and the observations herein are only with a view to decide maintainability of the interim application. [ M.W. CHANDWANI, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]

Order - Status 8: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.