Nitin Ratilal Karia vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8539 Bom

ppn                                  1                5.wp-6432.10.doc


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                           WRIT PETITION NO.6432 OF 2010

Nitin Ratilal Karia                           .. Petitioner
      Versus
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Anr. .. Respondents

            ---
Mr.A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate i/by Mr.Vilas B. Tapkir for the
petitioner.
Mr.S.R. Ganbavale for the respondent no.1-PCMC.
Mrs.Neha Bhide, 'B' Panel Counsel for the respondent no.2-State.
            ---
                        CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &
                                    KAMAL KHATA, JJ.

                     DATE        : 29th AUGUST 2022

P.C.:-
.               It is a common ground that the judgment of this Court in

case of Kausarbag Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 1 Bom CR 409 is upheld by the Supreme Court in case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs.Kausarbag Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Anr., (2014) 15 SCC 753.

2. Mr.Ganbavale, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 states that the issue involved in this petition is not concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs.Kausarbag Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Anr. (supra) and seeks time to distinguish the said judgment. He further, on instructions, states that the said judgment in case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. Kausarbag Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Anr. (supra) has been referred to a larger bench by the Supreme Court.

ppn 2 5.wp-6432.10.doc

3. In our view, question as to whether the judgment of this Court applies to the facts of this case or not which is upheld by the Supreme Court in case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. Kausarbag Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Anr. (supra) can be decided by this Court along with other issues, if any, finally on the next date.

4. Both the parties are at liberty to file brief written propositions of law along with copy of the judgment which they propose to rely upon in support of their rival contentions raised in this petition with advance copies on the other side.

5. Affidavit-in-reply, if any, shall be filed by the respondent no.1 within one week from today with a copy to be served upon the petitioners' advocate simultaneously. It is made clear that no further extension of time would be granted. Rejoinder, if any, shall be filed within one week thereafter with a copy to be served upon the respondents' advocate.

6. Place the matter on board for 'hearing' on 4 th October at 3.30 p.m. It is made clear that no further adjournment would be granted.

                  KAMAL KHATA, J.                 R.D. DHANUKA, J.