RAMESH PURSHOTTAM SAKHARE AND ORS v. THE DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING AND VALUATION DEPARTMENT AND ORS
WP/1905/2026 · 2026-09-11
body1905
DailyLaw.ai
[ 1905 DAILYLAW 4 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 1905 DAILYLAW 4 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
14-WP.1905.2026.doc Salunke IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1905 OF 2026 Ramesh Purshottam Sakhare & Ors. } Petitioners Versus The Director, Town Planning and Valuation } Department & Ors. } Respondents Ms. Nikita Suresh Kamble i/b. Mr. Suresh Kamble, Advocates for the Petitioners. Ms. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Mr. Kettan Joshi, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 4. Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo, Advocate for Respondent-Panvel Municipal Corporation.
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C.:
1. The primary relief sought in this Writ Petition is to issue a direction to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to decide the applications dated 10th March 2025 and 18th September 2025 filed by the Petitioners before Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the relief sought, we are not inclined to issue Notice or keep the matter pending. Instead, we direct the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider and decide the applications dated 10th March 2025 and 18th September 2025 filed by the Petitioners, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 3 months from today after 1 JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE Digitally signed by JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE Date: 2026.09.13 15:18:13 +0530
14-WP.1905.2026.doc affording an opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders.
3. Suffice it to state that we have not adverted to the merits of the matter and all contentions of the parties are kept open.
4. With the above Directions, the Writ Petition is Disposed Of.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 2