SHRIDHAR CHANDRAKANT GODSE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondents are now represented having been served.

(2.) Having heard Mr Tamboly for the Petitioners and considered the submissions as well as the material before us, we are not inclined to interfere. Some of our reasons were set out in the order that we passed on mentioning yesterday, 11/9/2023. The impugned notice of 6/9/2023 is at Exhibit "L" at page 128. But the entire Petition proceeds on the footing that quite abruptly the five Petitioners were given notice to vacate the tenements in the structure in question. The impugned notice itself makes references to notices of 2022 as we had previously noted. We had also remarked that it was odd that the Petitioners waited until 9/9/2023, just a few days ago, to suddenly appoint their own Structural Auditor so that they could now lay claim to a demand that the reports be referred to the Technical Advisory Committee ("TAC").

(3.) That branch of the law is, regrettably, widely misunderstood. In particular, nobody seems to have paid any attention at all to the final order in the Writ Petition in which an interim order fashioned or made guidelines that led to the creation of this TAC. We will examine that aspect of the matter in an appropriate case but since there are no contesting reports, we do not take up that issue today. What is undeniable and is stated in the Petition is that the Petitioners have filed a Civil Suit No. 425 of 2022 before the 6th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Kalyan. Paragraphs 13 to 16 deal with this. Mr Sakhare for the landlord Respondents Nos. 5 to 8 has shown us the prayers in that Suit. They are almost identical to the prayers in the present Petition.