##PAGE1##

9-WPL 36387-25.DOC

PSVRAAGA RJ TAA ARK KTADsPSV D21+i 01RAAi ag 0g 2:tGA Rn 55i e5t 3eJ TA 4:a .Ad 01A :Rl 2K 2Kby 8T .y 2A

4

Prajakta Vartak

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (L.) NO. 36387 OF 2025

Techno Freshworld LLP ...Petitioner

Vs

Maharashtra Housing and Development

Authority & Ors. ...Respondents

_________

Mr. Sanjay Udeshi, Mr. Aditya Udeshi and Mr. Rahul Sanghvi i/b. M/s. Sanjay

Udeshi & Co. for Petitioner.

Ms. Priti Rao i/b. Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi for Intervenor.

Mr. P. G. Lad for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Krishnakant Deshmukh for Respondent No.3.

Mr. Rohaan Cama with Mr. Shishir Joshi and Ms. Priti Shukla i/b. Ms. Priti Joshi

for Respondent No.4.

__________

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &

AARTI SATHE, JJ.

DATE: 22 DECEMBER 2025.

P.C.

1. On 08 December 2025, we had adjourned the proceedings for a

sufficiently long period to enable the respondents to place their reply affidavit on

record.

2. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that the advocate has been

following up with the concerned department, however, there is no response. It is

also to be noted that no application seeking extension of time to file the reply

affidavit, as directed by this Court, has been filed. Hence there is breach of the

orders passed by this Court. Considering the observations made by this Court in

the proceedings of Writ Petition No. 9319 of 2022 (Sudhakar Madhukar Patil &

Ors. vs. The Collector, Thane, Page 1 of 4), the Court, in similar circumstances in respect of

1

2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2863 (decided on 29 August 2024)

22 December 2025

::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 12:04:21 :::

9-WPL 36387-25.DOC

the State Government not complying with the orders of the Court to file reply

affidavit, made the following observations:-

“1. It is seen from the record that the learned AGP and learned

Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5 on 11 November 2022 sought

time to take instructions and file reply, if necessary. The proceedings were

stood over to 15 December 2022. Thereafter, the proceedings were listed

before the Court on 19 June 2023 when the following order was passed

issuing directions to file affidavit on or before 17 July 2023:-

“1. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of

Respondent Nos.1 to 3, 6 & 7 as well as the learned advocate

appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.4 & 5 seek time to

file an affidavit-in-reply to the above writ petition.

2. Acceding to their request, it is directed that the

concerned Respondents mentioned above shall file their

affidavit-in-reply to the above writ petition on or before 17th

July,2023 and serve a copy of the same on the advocates for

the Petitioners.

3. Place the above writ petition on board for admission

on 24^th July, 2023.”

(emphasis supplied)

2. It is seen from the record that even on 2 January 2024 none of

the respondents filed reply affidavits and had sought further time to file

reply affidavits. Accordingly, the hearing on this petition was adjourned

to 20 February 2024.

3. Today when the proceedings are listed again, an adjournment is

sought by the State as also CIDCO to file reply affidavits.

4. In the above circumstances, when for a period of one year an

order passed by this Court directing the respondents to file reply affidavit

is not being complied, we have no alternative but to impose costs. Thus,

as a matter of last chance, liberty is granted to file reply affidavits not later

than 12 September 2024, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- each

to the petitioners. Stand over to 12 September 2024.

5. We are constrained to pass the aforesaid order as the prior orders

passed by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court, setting out specific

timelines to file reply affidavits are totally neglected when they were

required to be complied. At no point of time during such a long period of

more than one year any application was filed on behalf of the

respondents seeking an extension of time to file reply affidavits, when the

specific orders were staring at the respondents. As if it is a