All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5167 OF 2005 Om-Satnam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. : Petitioners V/s. ... The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society & Ors. : Respondents Mr.Bharat Joshi with Mr.Rajesh Singh for the petitioners. Mr.A.H.Palekar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader, for the respondent nos.1 to 4. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. August 25, 2005. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Palekar, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, appears and waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 4. Head by consent. The only grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and, in my view, rightly is that the Divisional Joint Registrar took cognizance of the petitioners' application for stay, but has not passed any order on the said application. The learned Divisional Joint Registrar has not even assigned any reason for not passing any order. In the circumstances, the learned Divisional Joint Registrar is directed to decide the petitioners' application for stay on merits within a period of four weeks from the date the parties appear before the learned Divisional Joint Registrar. The parties are directed to appear before the Divisional Joint REgistrar on 31.8.2005. All contentions of both the parties are kept open. Status quo shall continue till the learned Divisional joint Registrar decides the petitioners' stay application. Thereafter, the order passed by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar shall be in force. The rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Sd/- S.A. BOBDE, J. 2

Order - Status 5: pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2129 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2146 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of appearances, Court's or Judge's orders Court's orders or directions & Registrar Registrar's orders. Mr. G. K. Anand i/by Mohd. Shine with S. S. Bijlani for petitioners in WP No. 2129 of 2016. Mr. G. K. Anand i/by Manish Rai for petitioners in WP No. 2146 of 2016. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for State. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ **.** July 05, 2016. P.C. : Issue notice to respondents, returnable after four weeks i.e. 2/8/2016. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of respondent no.1 – State. Till the next date i.e. 2/8/2016, we direct that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in respect of the subject crime. However, it is clarified that there is no stay to the investigation. (PRAKASH D. NAIK *,* J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2129 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2146 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.Mohd.Shine with S.S.Bijlani for Petitioner in WP No.2146 of 2016. Mr.G.K.Masand i/by Manish Rai for Petitioner in WP No.2129 of 2016. Mr.Kanishk Jayant with Mr.Harvinder Singh for Respondent no.2. Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP, for State. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : 2nd August 2016 PC :­ 1. Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board. 2. Heard. Learned counsel for Respondent no.2 appears. Stand over to 10 August 2016. Ad­interim relief granted earlier to continue till 10 August 2016. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PEITION NO.2129 OF 2016 Commander Kamaljeet Singh Bhatti (Retired) & Ors. Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PEITION NO.2146 OF 2016 Ghara Singh (Retired) & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents …... Mr. Mohd. Shine a/w. S.S. Bijlani, Advocate for the Petitioners in W.P. No.2129 of 2016. Mr.G.K. Masand i/b. Mr.Manish Rai, Advocate for the Petitioners in W.P.No.2146 of 2016. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for Respondent - State in both the petitions. Mr. Kanishk K. Jayant, Advocate for Respondent Respondent no.2 in both the petitions. …... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 11, 2016. P.C. : Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners. Following issues arise for consideration: (a) Whether petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste in relation to the State of Maharashtra; (b) Whether petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab; (c) Whether FIR/complaint registered against accused persons attracts penal provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short "the SC & ST Act") 2 In the facts and reading compliant whether penal offence is attracted, learned counsel appearing for petitioners places reliance on following judgments: (a) Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College & Ors. 1 (b) State of Mahrashtra Vs. Milind & Ors. 2 (c) Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. & Ors. 3 (d) Ghanshyam Kala s/o. Jagat Ram Kala Vs. The State 4 (e) Udaysingh Ramsingh Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra 5 (e) Dhiren Prafulbhai Shah Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 6 1 (1990) 3 SCC 130 2 (2001) 1 SCC 4 3 (2008) 12 SCC 531 4 2009(1) Uttaranchal Decision 639 5 2003(3) Mh.L.J 225 6 (2010) 8 SCC 775 3 Learned counsel appearing for complainant prays for dismissal of these petitions. It was submitted that complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab and in relation to the State of Maharashtra, the issue is required to be considered on a broader prospective. Learned counsel referred to Article 17 of the Constitution of India. 4 Learned APP submits that investigation is likely to be completed within three to four weeks. 5 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. We find that the issues raised by petitioners for consideration. 6 Rule. Rule returnable early. 7 In the meantime, further proceedings consequent to registration of FIR stands stayed. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2129 OF 2016 Commander Kamaljeet Singh Bhatti (Retired) & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2146 OF 2016 Mr. Ghara Singh (Retired) & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Mohd. Shine i/b S.S. Bijlani for petitioners in WP/2129/2016. Mr.Manish Rai for petitioner in WP/2146/2016. Mr.F.R. Shaikh, APP for respondent No.1-State. Mr.Kaushik Jayant a/w. Ms. Antra Jayant, Mr. Nilesh Mandavkar, Mr. Rajye Jain i/b Kanishk Jayant for respondent No.2 in WP/2129/2016 and WP/2146/2016. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & N.J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATE : 9TH OCTOBER 2019 P.C. 1. Not on board. Mentioned, in view of urgency. Taken on production board. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties in both petitions. 3. The subject first information report bearing C.R. No. II-15/2016, dated 18-05-2016 on the complaint of the respondent No.2 (in both petitions) for the offences punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.2146 of 2016, are the original accused Nos.1 and 2 in the subject crime and the petitioners in Writ Petition No.2129 of 2016 are the original accused Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the subject crime. 4. Pending investigation of the subject crime, the parties have settled their dispute amicably and accordingly the complainantrespondent No.2 has submitted consent terms before the Civil Judge, Senior Division-Panvel in Hindu Marriage Petition No.297 of 2015. The copy of the consent terms presented before the Court. Clause (4) of the consent terms reads as under :- 4 The petitioner Husband has agreed to give his consent for quashing of FIR filed by him bearing No. II-15/2016 dated 18 th May 2016 u/s 3(1)(10) of Atrocities Act, 1989 and section 7(1)(5) of Protection of Civil Rights Act. 1955 with CBD Police Station, Navi Mumbai against father of the Respondent i.e., the Gharasingh Chahal, Gurmit Kaur, Gurbax Singh, Hardeep Singh Anjan, Mehersingh Randhava, K.J.S. Bhatti, Gurinderjit Saini. The Petitioner-husband is agreed to give his consent and/or file an affidavit to that effect in Writ Petition bearing No. 2146 of 2016 and Writ Petition bearing No. 2129 of 2016 filed in respect of said FIR bearing No.II-15/2016." 5. In view of the above understanding, the parties have approached this Court for quashing the subject crime. The respondent No.2 has filed a common affidavit dated 9 th October 2019 in both Writ Petitions, i.e., Writ Petition No.2146 of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 2129 of 2016 and in paragraph 6 thereof, has given consent to the withdrawal of all the charges levelled in the subject crime. The respondent No.2 is personally present in Court and on specific query by this Court, confirmed that he has no objection to quash the subject FIR. 6. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaints, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab 1 , we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. Accordingly, both petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), respectively. However, at the same time, costs need to be saddled on the petitioners for using the police and judicial machinery for settling their personal disputes. In view of this, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2146 of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 2129 of 2016 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs in each petition. The total amount of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to "Tata Memorial Hospital", an institution that takes care of the patients suffering from cancer at advanced stage and/or terminally ill due to cancer. For the quashment to take effect, the petitioners shall pay the said costs and produce the receipt thereof on the file of this Court within the period of four weeks from today. Failing to pay cost and produce receipt within stipulated time, petitions shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference 1 2014 AIR SCW 2065 to the Court and order quashing the proceedings/FIR shall be treated as non-est. 8. Subject to above, the writ petitions stand disposed of. [ N.J. JAMADAR, J. ] [ RANJIT MORE, J.]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 877 OF 2008 Chandrakant Baburao @ Bhaurao Patil. .. Petitioner. vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Agglormeratin, Thane & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. S.G. Karandikar for Petitioner. Mr. V.S. Masurkar, Govt.Pleader for Respondent no.1 to 3. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: 11TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C. . Notice before admission returnable within four weeks. Govt. Pleader waives service for respondent nos. 1 to 3. In the meantime there will be an ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (e). (J.N. Patel, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 877 OF 2008 Chandrakant Baburao @ Bhaurao Patil ..Petitioner versus The Addl. Collector & Competent Authority Urban Agglomeration, Thane & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. G. Karandikar for Petitioner. Ms. M. P. Thakur – AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : JANUARY 04, 2010. P.C. : Heard Mr. Karandikar for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the possession of the land in question which was subject matter of proceeding under the Urban Land Ceiling Act is still with the petitioner. It is further contended that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in case of Voltas Limited vs. Addl. Collector and Competent Authority & Ors. reported in 2008(5) Bom. C.R. 746. In that view of the matter, the proceedings which are pending under the Act after the said decision stands vitiated if the possession of the land in question is with the petitioner. The learned AGP seeks time till 12th January, 2010 to verify whether the possession of the land is still with the petitioner. In the circumstances, time granted. Place the matter on 12th January, 2010 for admission. (D. D. SINHA, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 877 OF 2008 Chandrakant Baburao @ Bhaurao Patil ..Petitioner versus The Addl. Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Agglomeration, Thane & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. G. Karandikar for Petitioner. Mr. V. S. Gokhale – AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 – State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : MARCH 04, 2010. P.C. : The learned Assistant Government Pleader seeks further time of two weeks by way of last chance to seek instructions whether the possession of the land in question is still with the petitioner. Time granted by way of last chance. Place the matter on 19th March, 2010. (D. D. SINHA, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.877 OF 2008 Chandrakant Baburao @ Bhaurao Patil .... Petitioner V/s. The Addl. Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Agglomeration, Thane and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.S.G.Karandikar, for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP, for the respondents. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 19th MARCH, 2010 P.C. Rule. Learned AGP for the State waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of both the sides, petition is taken up for hearing today. The land of the petitioner was declared surplus under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Petitioner had submitted a scheme under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which was initially approved. However, subsequently, it was cancelled and the land was treated as excess. A notification under section 10(3) of the act, was published in the official Gazette on 01022007 and thereafter, notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 18062007. This aspect has been highlighted by the Government in Para No.1 of the affidavitinreply. However, in para No.1 it is stated that possession of excess land admeasuring 3260 sq.mtrs., has not been taken. During the course of hearing, learned AGP submitted that there is nothing to show that any physical possession was taken, nor any panchanama was made. It is therefore, an indubitable fact that the aforesaid area remained in the possession of the petitioner all through out till today. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the provisions of Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, which provides that "the repeal of the principal Act shall not affect, (a) the vesting of any vacant land under subSection (3) of Section 10, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf or the competent authority". Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not received any compensation in any manner and therefore, there is no question of any amount which is required to be paid back to the State Government as per subSection 2 of Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. It is required to be noted that in the case of Voltas Ltd. & Anr., V/s. Additional Collector & Competent Authority and Ors., 2008(5) 2 Bom.C.R. 746 , the Division Bench of this Court has held that : Now so far as those lands which are owned by the petitioners in relation to which a notification under subsection 3 of Section 10 of the Principal Act was issued and the order under subsection (5) of Section 10 of the Principal Act was made are concerned, it is the provisions of Section 3 of the Repeal Act which are relevant. Reading of Section 3 of the Repeal Act shows that it is a saving clause and subsection 1(a) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act saves vesting of any vacant land under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government. In other words, vesting of vacant lands under sub section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act in the State Government, possession of which has not been taken over, is not saved. In the present case, it is an admitted position that though declaration under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act was made, the possession of the land was not taken over by the Government or by the competent authority. Therefore, on bare reading of the provisions, it can be said that by virtue of repeal, vesting of the land of the first petitioner in the State by virtue of declaration made under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, is not saved. A submission on behalf of the State Government was made that by virtue of declaration made subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act in relation to the petitioners' land, the land has vested in the Government, but there is no provision in the Repeal Act which divest the State Government of the ownership of the land. In our opinion, this submission has no substance. Firstly, because the purpose of enacting section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act is to save or protect vesting of vacant lands in the State Government and out of the vacant lands that might have vested in the State Government by virtue of declarations made under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, only vesting of those lands in the State Government of which possession has been taken has been saved. Therefore, by necessary implication it follows that vesting of those lands in the State Government under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act of which possession has not been taken has been repealed or made ineffective. Vesting of the lands in the State Government had occurred because of the Principal Act which has been repealed. The Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of "India Tobacco Co.Ltd. Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Bhavanipore & others, (1975)3 Supreme Court Cases 512" has observed that "Repeal" connotes abrogation or obliteration of one statute by another, from the statute book as completely "as if it had never been passed". Therefore, the effect of the repeal is to wipe out the statute from existence. Therefore, the normal effect of repeal is to wipe out everything done under the repealed statute except that which is saved either expressly or by necessary implication. In the same judgment i.e. "India Tobacco Co.Ltd." the Supreme Court has observed that the repeal is not a matter of mere form but one of substance, depending upon the intention of the Legislature. If the intention of the legislature in repealing the enactment was to abrogate or wipe off the former enactment, wholly or in part, then that enactment will cease and would be deemed to have never exist at all, in so far as the part which the Legislature wants to wipe out totally is concerned. The principal submission of the State Government is that as the land of the petitioners has vested in the State Government because of the declaration made sub section 3 of Section 10 of the Principal Act and as there is no express provision made in the Repeal Act wiping out vesting of the land in the State Government, the State Government will continue to be the owner of the land. In our opinion, the submission has no substance. As indicated above, if it is assumed that there was no saving clause contained in the Repeal Act or had there been no section 6 of the General Clauses Act in existence then mere repeal of the enactment will wipe out the enactment out of existence and everything done under the enactment will also go away, and in this situation, therefore, to avoid that effect, the legislature enacts saving clause and the Parliamen t has also enacted section 6 of the General Clauses Act to save certain things from the effect of repeal. Therefore, it follows that except for that which is saved by the legislature by making specific provision or in the absence of specific provision by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, everything else under the Repeal Act is wiped out. In the present case by the saving clause contained in Section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act what is saved is vesting of the land in the State Government under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act possession of which was already taken over by the Government. In other words, therefore, vesting of land in the State Government in relation to those lands of which possession was not taken is wiped out. This position also becomes clear from the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. Subsection 2 of Section 3 of the Repeal Act is in the nature of a proviso or exception to section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act. If subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act had not been enacted, vesting of even those lands in the State Government in relation to which the amount has been paid by the State Government to the land owner but possession has not been taken, will also stand wiped out. Because of subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, now the land continues to be vested in the State Government though the possession of the land was not taken till the owner pays back the amount received by him. Had subsection (2) not been enacted because of the operation of section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act, the vesting of the land in the State Government would have been wiped out because the possession is not taken and the land owner would be entitled to retain the amount received by him from the State Government as also the land. Subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Repeal Act was enacted by the legislature to ensure that the Government gets back the amount which is paid by it before the land reverts to the land owner. In other words the effect of the provision of Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act is to postpone cancellation of vesting of the land in the State Government till the land owner pays back the amount received by him. In the case covered by Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act, the land owner gets back title of the land only on payment of the amount that he had received under the Act from the government. In our opinion, what is contained in Section 4 of the Repeal Act also indicate that vesting of those lands possession of which has not been taken over by the State Government will revert back to the land owner. It is to be seen that the land is, by operation of the provisions of sub section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act, vested in the State Government, so that the State Government can deal with that land under the Principal Act. Perusal of Section (4) of the Repeal Act shows that only the provisions of Section 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Principal Act continue to operate even after the repeal in relation to the land of which possession has been taken. In other words, after 29.11.2007 the provisions of Section 11,12,13 and 14 of the Principal Act are not available to the State Government in relation to the land of which possession has not been taken. Thus, if it is held that even after the Repeal Act, the State Government continues to have title of the land of which it has not taken possession, then it will mean that the Government has become title holder of the land without paying any amount to the land owner and with no possibility of amount being determined and paid under Section 11 of the Principal Act because those provisions do not continue to apply after the repeal in relation to the lands possession of which has not been taken. At this juncture, it becomes necessary to refer to the scheme of Section 10 of the Principal Act. Section 10 of the Principal Act reads as under: "10. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit: (1) As soon as may be after the service of the statement under section 9 on the person concerned, the competent authority shall cause a notification giving the particulars of the vacant land held by such person in excess of the ceiling limit and stating that (i) such vacant land is to be acquired by the concerned State Government; and (ii) the claims of all person interested in such vacant land may be made by them personally or by their agents giving particulars of the nature of their interests in such land, to be published for the information of the general public in the Official Gazette of the State concerned and in such other manner as may be prescribed. (2) After considering the claims of the persons interested in the vacant land, made to the competent authority in pursuance of the notification published under subsection (1), the competent authority shall determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass such others as it deems fit. (3) At any time after the publication of the notification under subsection (1) the competent authority may, by notification published in the Official Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under subsection (1) shall, with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and upon the publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified. (4) During the period commencing on the date of publication of the notification under subsection (1) and ending with the date specified in the declaration made under subsection (3) (i) no person shall transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any excess vacant land (including any part thereof) specified in the notification aforesaid and any such transfer made in contravention of this provision shall be deemed to be null and void; and (ii) no person shall alter or cause to be altered the use of such excess vacant land. (5) where any vacant land is vested in the State Government under subsection (3), the competent authority may by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of it to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or to any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice. (6) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under subsection (5), the competent authority may take possession of the vacant land or cause it to be given to the concerned State Government or to any person duly authorised by such State Government in this behalf and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary. Explanation: In this section, in sub section (1) of Sec. 11 and in sections 14 and 23, "State Government", in relation to (a) any vacant land owned by the Central Government, means the Central Government; (b) any vacant land owned by any State Government and situated in the Union Territory or within the local limits of a cantonment declared as such under section 3 of the Cantonments Act,1924, means that State Government." Perusal of the above provisions shows that vesting of the land in the State Government occurs on publication of notification in the official Gazette under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act. Thereafter, the competent authority gets power to make order directing the person who is in possession of the land to surrender or deliver the possession of the land to the State Government, and if that person does not deliver the possession then the Competent authority becomes competent to take possession under subsection (6) of Section 10 of the Principal Act. Thus, after 29.11.2007, the provisions of subsection (5) and subsection (6) of Section 10 of the Principal Act are not available to the State Government, therefore, in relation to that land with respect to which declaration under sub section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act has been made but possession has not been taken, the Competent authority will not be entitled to make an order directing the person in possession of the land to deliver the possession to the Government nor the Competent authority would be entitled to take possession under subsection (6) of Section 10 of the Principal Act on failure of the person in possession to deliver the possession. Thus, the State Government will not be in a position to take possession of the land under the provisions of the Principal Act, it will also not be in a position to to determine the compensation of the land under Section 11 of the Principal Act and make payment to that compensation to the interested persons under Section 14 of the Principal Act. Section 4 of the Repeal Act keeps the provisions of Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 relating to determination of amount and payment of amount alive only in relation to the land possession of which has been taken by the Government. In our opinion, therefore, it is clear from the provisions of the Repeal Act that as a result of the Repeal Act neither any proceedings can continue nor the State Government can claim that the land continued to vest in it if possession of the land in relation to which declaration under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act has been made, has not been taken before 29.11.2007. In other words to claim that vesting of the land in the State Government is saved, it will have to be shown by the State Government that the possession of the land in accordance with the provisions of the Principal Act has been taken by the Government before 29.11.2007. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and the fact that physical possession all through out remained with the petitioner, especially when the Government has not taken paper possession, nor any panchanama was made in view of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, the proceedings abate and now the petitioner cannot be ask for recovering possession and now there is no question of taking possession. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute. ( R.G.KETKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.109 OF 2022 Jaya Talakshi Chheda Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Respondents Mr. Taraq Sayed i/b Mr. Ajay Dubey, for the F Petitioner. Ms. M. M. Deshmukh, A.P.P for the Respondents. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 24 th AUGUST 2022 P.C. : The aforesaid petition has been circulated for withdrawal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions of the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this petition. Petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. It is made clear that we have not heard the petition on merits. SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mahammud Sayed Fakih Since Dec Thr His Legal Heirs ....PETITIONER V/S Shripat Kathod Tambde Since Dec Thr Lrs ....RESPONDENT Mr Sanjay S Patil Advocate for Petitioner. { Mentioned at 3.50 p.m. } Ms Kavita N Solunke - AGP for Respondent - State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIRAM MADHUSUDAN MODAK, JJ DATE : 22nd February, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 23/02/2022 ( H. O. B.). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mohd.Sayed Fakih, since deceased through His L.Rs. & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Shripat K.Tambde, since deceased through His L.Rs. & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Sanjay S. Patil for the Petitioners. Mr.R.S. Pawar, AGP for the Respondent for the State - Respondent Nos.4 and 5. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA & S.M. MODAK, JJ. DATE : 23RD FEBRUARY, 2022. P.C. :- Mr.Pawar, learned AGP for the State seeks time to take instructions and to file affidavit in reply. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the land of the petitioners is the subject matter of the impugned award, the compensation is awarded in favour of the respondent nos.1 to 3. Statement is accepted. Issue notice upon the respondent nos.1 to 3, returnable on 6 th April, 2022. Hamdast is permitted. In addition to the Court notice the petitioners are permitted to serve the respondent nos.1 to 3 by private service by all permissible modes of services in accordance with law. Learned AGP waives service for the respondent nos.4 and 5. The respondent nos.4 and 5 shall not release any payment of compensation in favour of the respondent nos.1 to 3 till next date. Place the matter on board for admission on 6th April, 2022. (S.M. MODAK, J.) (R.D. DHANUKA, J.) Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2022.02.24 12:13:36 +0530

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mohammud Sayed Fakih Since deceased Through LRs. … Petitioner Versus Shripat Kathod Tambde Since deceased Through LRs. … Respondent Mr. Sanjay S. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for the Respondents/State. CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & VINAY JOSHI, JJ. DATED : APRIL 6, 2022 P.C. Await service. Stand over to 4 th May 2022. Interim order passed earlier to continue till then. (VINAY JOSHI, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Digitally signed by RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Date: 2022.04.08 15:20:58 +0530

Order - Status 10: 48-wp1201-22.doc vai VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2022.05.06 15:02:27 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1201 OF 2022 Abdul Mohd.Sy.Fakih, since deceased through his L.Rs. ...Petitioners V/s. Shripat K. Tambde, since deceased through his L.Rs. & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Sanjay Patil for the Petitioners. Mrs.M.S. Bane, AGP for the State - Respondent. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ. DATE : 4TH MAY, 2022. P.C. :- Await service. Returnable date is extended to 12th July, Ad-interim order passed by this Court to continue till then. (M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mahammud Sayed Fakih Since Dec Thr His Legal Heirs ....PETITIONER V/S Shripat Kathod Tambde Since Dec Thr Lrs ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ DATE : 12th July, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 12/09/2022 . 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. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mahammud Sayed Fakih Since Dec Thr His Legal Heirs ....PETITIONER V/S Shripat Kathod Tambde Since Dec Thr Lrs ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NITIN JAMDAR & HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ DATE : 12th September, 2022 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 28/09/2022 In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Digitally signed by BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Date: 2022.09.29 14:57:41 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Aziz Mahammud Sayed Fakih … Petitioner Versus Shripat Kathod Tambde & Ors. … Respondents ****** Mr. Sanjay Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. Prithviraj Gole for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the State. ****** CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA & R. N. LADDHA, JJ. DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2022 P.C. :- . The matter is mentioned in the morning. The matter as per the roster would be before the coordinate bench. The coordinate bench is not available. The petitioner seeks continuation of the interim order passed earlier. The learned advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 is present and the learned AGP is also present. At the request of parties, place the matter on 11th October, 2022. Interim order passed earlier shall continue till then. [R. N. LADDHA, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2022 Abdul Azia Mahammud Sayed Fakih (Since deceased through his LRs) Vazir Begam Aziz Mahammud Sayed Fakih (Since deceased through her LRs) 1 Tahera Mahammud Yousuf Hendade and Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Shripat Kathod Tambde (Since deceased through his LRs) 1 Vasant Shripat Tambde and Ors. .. Respondents …... Mr.Sanjay Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.Sandesh Patil i/b. Mr.Chintan Shaha, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr.R.S. Pawar, AGP for the Respondent – State. …... CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : 11 October 2022. RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Digitally signed by RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Date: 2022.10.15 16:37:07 +0530 P.C. : The learned counsel for Respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Petitioners have an alternate remedy under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, where the Petitioners can make a reference to the concerned authority. 2 Learned counsel for the Petitioner accepts and states that the Petitioners will approach the concerned authority and prays that the ad–interim order granted in this Petition be continued for some time to enable the Petitioners to approach the concerned authority. Considering the above submissions, and the fact that ad–interim order is operating since February 2022, while we dispose of the Petition, we continue the position under ad–interim order dated 23 February 2022, for a period of four weeks. 3 The contentions of the parties are kept open and continuation of ad–interim order will not be construed as reflection on the merits of the rival contentions. 4 Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. NITIN JAMDAR, J.

Order - Status 4: Digitally signed by SNEHA ABHAY DIXIT Date: 2024.06.25 13:49:54 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7844 OF 2024 IIFL Home Finance Ltd., Thane .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents Ms. Priyanka Fadia, i/by Mr. Shashank Fadia, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. M.S. Srivastava, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ DATE : 24 TH JUNE, 2024. P.C. : It is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the next date of the proceedings before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is 8th July 2024. To consider whether the said proceedings are taken up on the adjourned date, put up for further consideration on 16th July 2024. [ RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7844 OF 2024 Iifl Home Finance Ltd PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra Thr Assistant RESPONDENT Government And Anr CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.S. CHANDURKAR & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ DATE : 16th July, 2024 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 30/07/2024 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7844 OF 2024 IIFL Home Finance Ltd., Thane .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents Ms. Priyanka Fadia, i/by Mr. Shashank Fadia, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms. M.S. Srivastava, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent-State of Maharashtra. CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ DATE : 21 ST OCTOBER 2024. P.C. : The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the writ petition since the purpose of filing the same has been served. The writ petition is disposed of. [ RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ] 6-WP-7844-2024.doc Dixit

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1621 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1622 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1623 OF 2011 Global Trade Finance Limited ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Yashpal Thakur i/by M/s. Paras Kuhad & Associates, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for State in Cri.W.P. No. 1621 of 2011. Mr. A.S. Shitole, A.P.P. for State in Cri.W.P. No. 1622 of 2011. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, A.P.P. for State in Cri.W.P. No. 1623 of 2011. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 P.C. Heard. Issue notice to respondents returnable on 17.11.2011. The learned A.P.P. waives service on behalf of State. To be heard finally at admission stage along with W.P. No. 1620 of 2011. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)

Order - Status 12: WP 1620-G OF 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1620 OF 2011. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1622 OF 2011. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1623 OF 2011. Global Trade Finance Limited .. Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra and anr .. Respondents. Mr. Yashpal Thakur i/by M/s Paras Kuhad & Associates, for the petitioners in all the petitions. . Mrs. U. V. Kejariwal, APP for the Respondent – State Ms. K. R. Davierwala i/by M/s Mulla & Mulla C.B.C. for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 22nd November, 2012 P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has instructions from his client to withdraw the petitions. Petitions are disposed of as withdrawn. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)

Order - Status 2: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

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

Order - Status 4: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 5: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 6: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3536 OF 2021 Ess Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner Vs. The Union of India & Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3365 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2217 OF 2019 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3219 OF 2019 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.95 OF 2020 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.267 OF 2020 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.321 OF 2020 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.652 OF 2020 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.656 OF 2020 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.213 OF 2021 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1901 OF 2021 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2284 OF 2021 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2442 OF 2021 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2446 OF 2021 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2863 OF 2021 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2885 OF 2021 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3005 OF 2021 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3079 OF 2021 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3269 OF 2021 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3317 OF 2021 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3732 OF 2021 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.35 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.367 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.440 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.712 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2601 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3110 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.12893 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.12909 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.15936 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.19512 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.21326 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.22815 OF 2022 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8388 OF 2019 Finolex Industries Ltd. … Petitioner Vs. The Union of India, Thr. The Revenue Secretary & Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9640 OF 2019 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.874 OF 2020 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2885 OF 2020 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9106 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.521 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3522 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9107 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4494 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9105 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9109 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9113 OF 2022 ------- Mr. Bharat Raichandani a/w Mr. Mahesh Raichandani and Mr. Rishabh Jain i/by UBR Legal Advocates for Petitioner/s in WP No.2219 of 2019 and WP No.3536 of 2021. Mr. Harish Bindumadhavan a/w Mr. Bharat Raichandani, Mr. Mahesh Raichandani and Mr. Rishabh Jain i/b UBR Legal Advocates for Petitioner/s in WP No.267 of 2020. Mr. Gopal Mundhra a/w Ms. Ankita Vashistha i/by Economic Laws Practice for Petitioner/s in WP No.3365 of 2018. Mr. Purushartha Satish i/by Mr. Prabhakar K. Shetty for Petitioner/s in WP No.3219 of 2019. Mr. Rahul C. Thakar i/by Mr. C. B. Thakar for Petitioner/s in WP No.95 of 2020, WP No.2284 of 2021, WP No.3005 of 2021, WP No.3079 of 2021, WP No.3269 of 2021, WP No.3317 of 2021, WP No.35 of 2022, WP No.367 of 2022, WP No.440 of 2022, WP No.712 of 2022, WP No.2601 of 2022, WP(L) No.12893 of 2022, WP(L) No.12909 of 2022, WP(L) No.15936 of 2022, WP(L) No.19512 of 2022, WP(L) No.21326 of 2022 and WP(L) No.22815 of 2022. Mr. Manohar Samal i/by Mr. Ratan Samal for Petitioner/s in WP No.321 of 2020. Ms. Priyanka Ghosh i/by Mr. Abhiraj Parab for Petitioner/s in WP No.652 of 2020. Mr. Shashank Shekhar a/w Ms. Ritika Ajitsaria i/b Trilegal for Petitioner/s in WP No.656 of 2020. Mr.D.H. Nadkarni i/by Legal Solutions for Petitioner/s in WP No.213 of 2021. Mr. Parth Badheka i/by Ms. Nikita Badheka for Petitioner/s WP Nos.2442 of 2021 and WP No.2446 of 2021. Mr.V.M. Chavda for Petitioner/s in WP No.2863 of 2021. Ms. Padmavati Patil with Mr. Kiran Chavan i/by CENEX Services for Petitioner/s in WP No.3110 of 2022. Mr. Sriram Sridharan for Petitioner/s in WP No.8388 of 2019. Mr. Rahul C. Thakar i/by C. B. Thakar for Petitioner/s in WP No.874 of 2020, WP No.2885 of 2020, WP No.9106 of 2022, WP No.9107 of 2022. Mr. Sanket Bora a/w Ms. Vidhi Punmiya i/b SPCM Legal for Petitioner/s in WP No.521 of 2022. Mr. Ishan Patkar a/w Mr. Yash Dhond & Ms. Chaitali Raul i/b Sangram Chinnappa for Petitioner/s in WP No.3522 of 2022. Mr. Makrand Joshi i/b Max Legal for Petitioner/s in WP No.4494 of 2022, WP No.9109 of 2022. Mr. Bharat Raichandani a/w Mr. Mahesh Raichandani and Mr. Rishabh Jain i/by UBR Legal for Petitioner/s in WP(ST) No.95609 of 2020. Mr. Jitendra Motwani, Mr. Chirag Shetty, Ms. Shilpi Jain for Petitioner/s in WP No.9113 of 2022. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra, Mr. Vijay H. Kantharia, Mr. Sham V. Walve, Mr. Swapnil Bangur, Mr. Ram Ochani, Mr.P.S. Patkar, Mr. Karan Adik, Ms. Ruju Thakker, Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Dhananjay B. Deshmukh, Mr. Satyaprakash Sharma, Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra and Mr. Amit Singh for Respondents-Union of India, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and Goods and Services Tax Council. Ms. Jyoti Chavan, AGP a/w Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for Respondents – State of Maharashtra. Mr. Vijay H. Kantharia a/w Mr. Ram Ochani for Respondent/s in WP No.8388 of 2019, WP No.9640 of 2019. S. D. Vyas, GP B' PNL for Respondent-State in WP No.8388 of 2019@WP No.9640 of 2019, WP No.874 of 2020, WP No.2885 of 2020, WP No.9106 of 2022, WP No.9107 of 2022, WP No.4494 of 2022, WP No.9105 of 2022 Mr. Pradeep Jetly Senior Advocate, Maya Majumdar for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in WP No.521 of 2022. Mr. Pradeep Jetly, Senior Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 in WP No.521 of 2022. Mr. Karan Adhik with Mr. Ram Ochani for Respondent/s in WP No.3522 of 2022. Mr. Pradeep Jetly, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Jitendra Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav for Respondent/s in WP No.9107 of 2022. Mr. Swapnil Bangur for Respondent/s in WP No.9107 of 2022. Mr. Ashutosh Misra for Respondent No.1-Union of India in WP No.4494 of 2022. Mr. Jitendra Mishra, Mr. Dhananjay Deshmukh, Mr. Ashutosh Misra, Smt. R. A. Salunke, AGP for Respondent-State in WP No. 4494 of 2022. Mr.P.S. Jetly Senior Advocate with Mr. Ram Ochani, Smt. R.A. Salunkhe AGP for Respondent/s in WP No.9105 of 2022. Mr. Pradeep Jetly, Senior Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 in WP No.9105 of 2022. Mr. Jitendra Mishra, Mr. Dhananjay Deshmukh, Mr. Ashutosh Misra, Ms. Sangeeta Yadav for Respondent/s in WP No.9109 of 2022. CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & A.S. DOCTOR, JJ. DATED : 29th JULY 2022 P.C. : The Hon'ble Apex Court in order dated 22nd July, 2022 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(C) No(s).32709-32710 of 2018 and other matters has directed the GST Network to open the common portal to file/rectify TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for a period of two months, i.e., with effect from 1st September, 2022 to 31st October, 2022 to enable the different private parties to avail Transitional Credit. The order reads as under :- "O R D E R Permission to file Special Leave Petition(s) is allowed. Delay condoned. Having heard learned Additional Solicitor General, learned counsel appearing for different States and learned counsel appearing for different private parties and having perused the record, we are of the view that it is just and proper to issue the following directions in these cases : Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) is directed to open common portal for filing concerned forms for availing Transitional Credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for two months i.e. w.e.f. 01.09.2022 to 31.10.2022. Considering the judgments of the High Courts on the then prevailing peculiar circumstances, any aggrieved registered assessee is directed to file the relevant form or revise the already filed form irrespective of whether the taxpayer has filed writ petition before the High Court or whether the case of the taxpayer has been decided by Information Technology Grievance Redressal Committee (ITGRC). GSTN has to ensure that there are no technical glitch during the said time. The concerned officers are given 90 days thereafter to verify the veracity of the claim/transitional credit and pass appropriate orders thereon on merits after granting appropriate reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned. Thereafter, the allowed Transitional credit is to be reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger. If required GST Council may also issue appropriate guidelines to the field formations in scrutinizing the claims. The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of." In the circumstances, since all the Petitioners can avail of this window, Petitions stand disposed. (A.S. DOCTOR, J.) ( K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)