2023:BHC-OS:3692
1-rpwl-7310-2023.doc
Dusane
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.7310 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.678 OF 2012
Adishakti Grihnirman Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Mukesh Vashi, Senior Advocate, i/b. Numan Law for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Amit Shastri, AGP, for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Yogesh Patil i/by Mr. Vijay D. Patil, for Respondent
No.2-AGRC and Respondent No.3-SRA.
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Mr. Akshay Sawant, a/w
Haripriya Parvatha i/b. I.V. Merchant and Company, for
Respondent No.4.
Mr. Chetan Kapadia a/w Mr. Hrushi Narvekar, Ms. Aneesa
Cheema, a/w. Ms. Shivani Khanwilkar, Mr. Anuj Sawla, i/b.
DSK Legal, for Respondent No.9.
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 28th APRIL 2023 P.C. :
1. The present Review Petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 14th September 2022 passed by this Court.
1/4 ::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2023 11:14:26 :::
1-rpwl-7310-2023.doc
2. Heard the learned Advocates of the respective parties. It is submitted that all the Respondents are served.
3. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the Review Petition is filed and under the review petition, only the Writ Petition No. 2482 of 2012 was restored while reviewing the order passed in Writ Petition No. 2482 of 2012, Writ Petition No.678 of 2012 and 1716 of 2011.
4. The Division Bench of this Court under its judgment and order dated March 1st 2021 accepted the consent terms filed by the parties and disposed of Writ Petition Nos.1716 of 2011, 2482 of 2012 and 678 of 2012.
5. The Review Petition bearing No. 3 of 2022 was filed. The Review was allowed by us under the judgment and order dated 14th September 2022. The said Review Petition was allowed by us by order dated 14th September 2022 thereby restoring Writ Petition No. 2482 of 2012 to the file.
6. It is not disputed that pursuant to the consent terms filed between the parties, all three Writ Petitions were 2/4 ::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2023 11:14:26 ::: 1-rpwl-7310-2023.doc disposed of, however, by allowing the Review Petition, only Writ Petition No. 2482 of 2012 was restored. The genesis of disposal of Writ Petition No. 2482 of 2012, 1716 of 2011 and 678 of 2012 was the consent terms between the parties.
7. In view of that, if the review was allowed then all three Writ Petitions were required to be restored to its original position.
8. The parties are ad idem that it is pursuant to the consent terms only all three aforesaid three petitions were disposed of.
9. If Writ Petition No. 1716 of 2011 and 678 of 2012 are not restored, then an anomalous position would arise in as much as pursuant to the order in Review, Writ Petition No. 2482 of 2012 is restored, whereas though pursuant to the said consent terms, Writ Petition No.1716 of 2011 and Writ Petition No. 678 of 2012 were also disposed of, they are not restored.
10. The contentions of the Petitioner appears to be probable and appropriate.
3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2023 11:14:26 :::
1-rpwl-7310-2023.doc
11. In light of that, we allow the present Review Petition and alongwith Writ Petition No. 2482 of 2012, also recall the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1716 of 2011 and 678 of 2012 dated March 1st 2021 and restore Writ Petition No. 1716 of 2011 and 678 of 2012 also to its original position.
12. The other terms and conditions in our order passed in Review Petition No.3 of 2022 under order dated 14th September 2022 shall also apply.
13. The Review Petition is accordingly disposed of. (MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 4/4 ::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2023 11:14:26 :::