KANTILAL PITAMBERDAS VORA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the notice dated 14th September, 1987 under section 41 (1) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 ("the Act") issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Housing and Special Assistance Department.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents submits that the controversy raised in this case is fully covered by the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2078 of 1990 dated 11th August, 1993 wherein the very same notice was challenged by another party in respect of one of the properties specified therein.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners does not agree with the above submissions and contends that in the above case, this Court was not concerned with the issues raised in the present case and, as such, the ratio of the decision in that case cannot apply to the present case. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in (M/s. Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana) A. I. R. 1990 S. C. 781 where it was observed that a precedent is an authority only for what it actually decides and not for what remotely or logically follows from it. According to learned Counsel the actual issues arising in this case did not come up for consideration in the above case and as such the above decision has no application. Counsel further submits that under section 41 (1) of the Act, the authorities concerned are obliged to place all material in their possession either by incorporating the proposals, plans or projects in the preliminary notice itself or by making the same available to would be objectors before they can show cause and if that is not done, the notice will be void ab initio. Reliance is placed in this connection on Division Bench Judgment of this Court in (Shyamrao v. State of Maharashtra) 1993 Mh. L. J. 841.