Bombay High Court
Adishakti Grihnirman Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 April, 2023
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
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-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
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.
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)
