[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Indian Insti. Of Architects, Navi ... vs M/S Progressive Homes, on 23 December, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2025:BHC-AS:57122-DB
rsk 01 & 02. IAST-34182-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 34182 OF 2025
IN
REVIEW PETITION IN PIL (ST.) NO. 1719 OF 2025
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.28 OF 2019
Indian Institute of Architects ...Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
The City & Industrial Development
Corporation ...Respondent
WITH
Digitally
signed by
PRASHANT
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 34187 OF 2025
PRASHANT VILAS
VILAS
RANE
RANE
Date:
2025.12.23
IN
20:28:46
+0530
REVIEW PETITION IN W.P. (ST.) NO. 6376 OF 2025
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.28 OF 2019
Indian Institute of Architects, Navi Mumbai Center,
Through Chairman, Shekhar Bagool
& J. T. Sec. Kaushal JA ...Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Progressive Homes ...Respondent
_________________________________
Mr. Indrajeet R. Kulkarni for the Applicant.
Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Nachiket Khaladkar a/w. Mr. Vijay
K. Aggarwal for the Respondent No.5 in IA (ST) No.34187/2025.
Mr. Ravi Prakash , Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Farman Ali, Mr. Rahul Sinha, Mr.
Soham Bhalerao, Mr. Harshit Tyagi i/b DSK Legal for CIDCO.
Mr. Tejesh Dande for Respondent No.3/Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation.
__________________________________
CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI J.
JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATE : 23 DECEMBER 2025
1 of 4
rsk 01 & 02. IAST-34182-2025.doc
P.C.:
1. This Interim Application is filed by the applicant-original petitioner in
the Public Interest Litigation No. 28 of 2019, which came to be disposed of by
judgment and order dated 1 July 2024. The Special Leave Petition filed by
original respondent-CIDCO as also respondent No.5- M/s. Progressive Homes
came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 4 November
2024. Consequent to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions, the CIDCO
as also the respondent No.5 filed Review Petition's before this Court being
Review Petition in PIL (ST) Nos.1719 of 2025 and 6376 of 2025, which came
to be disposed of by an order dated 16 September 2025. It is in the said
disposed of Review Petitions, the present Interim Applications are filed by the
applicants/original petitioners.
2. The prayers in the Interim Applications are common which are required
to be noted, which reads thus:
"(a) This Hon'ble Court by an order of stay may kindly stay of
operation, execution and implementation of the order/judgment
and order dated 16.09.2025 passed in Review Petition (St.) No.
6376 of 2025 and Review Petition Ldg. No.1719 of 2025 to the
extent of observation as follows "If the CIDCO intends to deal with
such extra land, it shall do so in manner known to law in doing so,
the judgment and order dated 01 July 2024 would not stand in the
way of the CIDCO in taking further appropriate steps as may be
permissible in law. We do not express any opinion on any further
steps being taken by the CIDCO.;
(b) Any other such further order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the interest of justice"
2 of 4
rsk 01 & 02. IAST-34182-2025.doc
3. Reply affidavit to this Interim Application is filed on behalf of CIDCO.
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
5. We are afraid that the relief as prayed for in this Interim Application
cannot be granted for more than one reason. The contentions being urged by
the applicant- petitioner, in our clear opinion, exceed the contentions and the
prayer as urged by the applicant petitioner in the writ petition which came to
be disposed of by our judgment and order dated 1 July 2024. Further the
review petition has also been disposed of, ensuring that the judgment and order
dated 1 July 2024 is fully complied by the CIDCO that is land admeasuring 20
acres (8 Hectares) earmarked for the State Government's sports complex is
handed over by the CIDCO to the State Government. It is already handed over
by the CIDCO to the State Government as observed by this Court in disposing
of the Review Petitions by order dated 16 September 2025.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, in respect of any allotment of land being
made by CIDCO to the private respondent viz., respondent No.5 , in our
opinion ought not to be an issue of adjudication in the presnet proceedings,
more particularly, when the purpose of the petition itself is achieved viz., that
clear land admeasuring 20 acres (8 Hectares) has been handed over by the
CIDCO to the State Government for the purpose of Sports Complex. If the
applicant-petitioner has any rights to assailing the allotment of the land made
by the CIDCO to respondent No.5, it needs to be the subject matter of a
3 of 4
rsk 01 & 02. IAST-34182-2025.doc
challenge to be raised by the applicants in independent proceedings and not
seek relief as prayed for in the present Interim Applications.
7. We accordingly dismiss these interim applications, however, keeping
open all contentions of the parties on the fresh allotment which has already
been made as stated by the CIDCO in favour of respondent No.5, as set out in
the reply affidavit.
8. Interim Applications stand dismissed, however in terms of the aforesaid
observations. No costs.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ] [G. S. KULKARNI J. ]
4 of 4
