Mrs. Manjula Rao And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1028 Bom

                                                                           (5)WPST-94867-20.doc

BDP-SPS


 Bharat
 D.
 Pandit                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 Digitally signed
 by Bharat D.
 Pandit
 Date:
 2021.01.16
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                    WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 94867 OF 2020
 15:28:00 +0530




                    Mrs. Manjula Rao and Anr                    ..... Petitioners.
                                V/s
                    The State of Maharashtra and Others         ...... Respondents.
                    -----
                    Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Sr. Advocate i/b Shubham Misar for the Petitioners.
                    Mrs. Kajale, "B" Panel AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
                    -----
                                      CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                                         DATE:     JANUARY 15, 2021

                    P.C.:-

                    1]       Heard Mr. Anturkar, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner.



                    2]       In a suit for declaration and injunction being Regular Civil Suit

No. 40 of 2016, suit to proceed without WS order came to be passed

on 8/12/2016. Thereafter, Trial Court proceeded with recording of

evidence in the suit proceedings. It appears that the State Government

and its authorities moved an application through the Assistant

Government Pleader on 13/9/2019 thereby praying for setting aside

the no WS order which came to be allowed vide order impugned dated

20/01/2020.

(5)WPST-94867-20.doc

3] My attention is invited to the contents of Application-Exhibit-47

moved by the Respondents, particularly the reasons cited for setting

aside the no WS Order.

4] In the aforesaid backdrop submission is, merely for asking, the

Trial Court has shown indulgence by setting aside no WS order.

5] Issue notice to Respondents, returnable on 01/02/2021.

6] The learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of

Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

7] The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner invited attention of

this Court to the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of

Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Bherulal reported in (2020) 10 SCC

654 so as to substantiate his claim that delay ought not to have been

condoned mechanically merely because Wing of the Government is a

party in the case. According to him, law of limitation undoubtedly

binds everybody including the Government. He would further claim

that there is no reasonable explanation comingforth in support of the

(5)WPST-94867-20.doc

condonation of delay.

8] In the light of above, this Court expects the learned District

Collector i.e. Respondent No.2 to file affidavit-in-reply responding to

the Petition.

9] The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner insists for granting

ad-interim relief as the Trial Court is proceeding with the suit in the

matter of recording of evidence.

10] Considering the fact that the order impugned was passed in

January 2020, this Court has not shown any indulgence at this stage of

the proceedings. However, it is made clear that if Respondent No.2-

Collector fails to file affidavit-in-reply, the Court will be constrained to

reconsider the prayer of the Petitioner.

11] The learned AGP undertakes to communicate this order to

Respondent No.2 personally.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )