M/S GROW INDIA REALCON LLP THRO. ITS PARTNERversusNARENDER SURESH GADADE

                                                                               901-WP-1114-2026 (C).doc

     Ashwini
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ASHWINI
PRASAD
NARHIRE                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 1114 OF 2026
Digitally signed by
ASHWINI PRASAD
NARHIRE
Date: 2026.10.01
18:56:11 +0530

                      M/s Grow India Realcon LLP
                      through its Partner
                                                                    ...Petitioner
                              Versus

                      Narender Suresh Gadade & Ors.                 ...Respondents
                                                         ...
                      Mr. Pralhad Paranjape, a/w Adv. Rupesh Geete and Adv. Avesh
                      Ganga, i/by Satyaki Law Associates for the Petitioner.

                      Mr. Rohan Mahadik, a/w Mr. Bhavin Vora, Ms. Nikitha Butty and
                      Ms. Bharvi M. Samel for Respondent No.1.

                      Adv. Leena Patil, a/w Mr. Rohin Chauhan for Respondent No.2.

                      Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, GP, a/w Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP and
                      Ms. P. J. Gavhane, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 to 5 and 10.

                      Adv. Jaya Bagwe, a/w Adv. Manthan Joil for Respondent Nos. 6, 7
                      and 8.

                      Adv. Kedar B. Dighe for Respondent No.9-MMRDA.
                                                         ...

                                       CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
                                               ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.

                                        DATE : 1st OCTOBER, 2026.

                      P.C.:
                      1.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties.




                                                          1
                                                                              901-WP-1114-2026 (C).doc


2.        This instant Writ Petition is preferred by the Petitioner, for the

following substantive relief:

                  “(a)     This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of
                  Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any
                  other appropriate Writ, Order or direction calling for
                  the     records      and      proceedings      pertaining      to    the
                  Impugned Order dated 12th November 2025 (Exhibit A
                  hereto), and after considering the legality and validity
                  thereof, be pleased to quash and set aside the same.”

3.        Mr. Prahlad Paranjape, learned counsel for the Petitioner has

invited our attention to paragraph 9 of the Impugned Order dated

12th November 2025, passed by the National Green Tribunal,

Western Zone Bench, Pune, which reads thus:

                 “9.       Based on the above submissions, we admit this
                 appeal, subject to the decision on delay condonation
                 application.”

4.        Mr. Paranjape would thus urge that, the Appeal filed by the

Respondent               No.1    was       admitted         without   first      deciding        the

application for condonation of delay in filing the said Appeal. Such

approach, according to Mr. Paranjape, would run contrary to the

decision of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ram

Prakash Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and

Others1 read with the decision of the learned Single Judge of this

Court in Lakadya Dharma Vartha Dec Thr. Legal Heir And Ors.
1
     Consolidation No. - 6574 of 2016 dated 3rd February 2022.


                                                     2
                                                                               901-WP-1114-2026 (C).doc


Vs. Shaikhali Shaikh Mohamed Varekar Dec Thr Legal Heir

and Ors.2


5.        Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents would

jointly submit that there is an alternate efficacious remedy available

against the Impugned Order before the Supreme Court, which is not

exhausted by the Petitioner. In view thereof, the Petition deserves to

be dismissed. In any event, the objections raised by the Petitioner in

this proceeding can also be raised in Appeal.


6.        After substantial arguments, Mr. Paranjape would fairly

submit         that      the     Petitioner       would,           in   the   given    facts     and

circumstances, file an appropriate Application for Review of the

Impugned Order before the National Green Tribunal, under Section

19 (4)(f) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. He would seek

appropriate leave of this Court to avail of such remedy.


7.        Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on

perusal of record, in our considered view interest of justice would be

served by disposing of this Petition, with liberty to Petitioner to

prefer an appropriate Application for Review of the Impugned Order

before the National Green Tribunal, under Section 19 (4) (f) of the

Act (Supra). In this regard, if such Review Application is preferred

by the Petitioner within two weeks of the date of uploading of this

2
     Writ Petition No.3753 of 2024 decided on 14th October 2024.


                                                     3
                                                            901-WP-1114-2026 (C).doc


Order, the period of limitation envisaged under Rule 22 of the

National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedure) Rules, 2011 will

not come in the way of the Petitioner in deciding the Review

Application, as the Petitioner has been bona fide pursuing this

proceeding.


8.     This Order has been passed with the due assistance of the

learned counsel appearing for the Respondents.


9.     With the above observations and directions we dispose of this

Petition without adverting to the merits of the rival contentions

which    are   kept   open   to   be       urged   before   the   appropriate

forum/authority, in accordance with law.




     [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]                           [CHIEF JUSTICE]




                                       4