Bombay High Court
Naman Industrial Park LLP through its partner Hemang ParekhversusThe State of Maharashtra The Secretary of Revenue and Forest Department AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The writ petition is disposed, with the authority directed to decide the objections within four weeks, without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to challenge the decision later.
Summary
The petition was filed by Naman Industrial Park LLP through its partner Hemang Parekh challenging an order of the State of Maharashtra’s Revenue and Forest Department. During the hearing, the petitioner indicated that it had appeared before the authority but had not received a final order, and therefore sought an adjournment. The Court, after considering the overall factual matrix, declined to keep the writ petition pending further argument. It directed the concerned authority to pass an appropriate order on the petitioner’s objections within four weeks, clarifying that any such decision would not prejudice the petitioner’s right to challenge it later. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the authority should be directed to pass an order on the petitioner’s objections before the writ petition can be disposed.
- Whether the writ petition can be dismissed pending the authority’s decision without prejudice to the petitioner’s future remedies.
Subjects
- writ petition
- administrative law
- adjournment
- disposal
- authority order
- prejudice
- civil appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
Digitally signed
by MAYUR
MAYUR KONDIRAM
ADANE
KONDIRAM Date:
ADANE 2026.09.23
11:19:36
+0530
17-WP-10383-2026 (C).doc
Mayur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10383 OF 2026
Naman Industrial Park Llp Through Its
Partner Hemang Parekh ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra The Secretary Of
Revenue And Forest Department And Ors ...Respondents
...
Adv. M. J. Bhatt, for the Petitioner.
Adv. Neha S. Bhide, GP, a/w Adv. Apurva Thipsay, ‘B’ Panel, for the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 4.
Adv. Akshay P. Shinde, for Respondent No. 2.
...
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In the midst of arguments, learned counsel for the Petitioner
informs this Court that during the pendency of the instant Writ
Petition, in response to the notice issued, the Petitioner has already
appeared. However, he has no instructions at present as to whether
any final order has been passed by the Authority or not. In view
thereof, a request for an adjournment is made.
1/2
17-WP-10383-2026 (C).doc
3. However, considering the overall factual situation that
emerges, we are not inclined to keep the Writ Petition pending
consideration.
4. We leave it open to the concerned Respondent Authority to
pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, in case the
objections filed by the Petitioner. It is made clear that any decision
so taken by the Authority shall not prejudice the rights of the
Petitioner to assail the same in subsequent legal proceedings, in
accordance with law.
5. We expect that the proceeding in question shall be finalized,
by the Respondent-Authority expeditiously, preferably within a
period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy
of this order.
6. With the aforesaid leave, the Writ Petition stands Disposed Of.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.