:1: :1: :1: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1842 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s Orders Orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Dilip Bodake, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.Sameer Patil, AGP for Respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 24TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Heard Mr.Bodake appearing for the petitioner. 2. Despite Mr.Bodake’s attention being invited to the averments in the Writ petition and the Annexures to the Writ petition including the Demand Notice, Mr.Bodake insists that SICOM is neither a necessary or a proper party. Further the dues according to him is of M/s. Nihal Cast Nylon Pvt. Ltd. The property is a Unit in the Maharasthra Industrial Development :2: :2: :2: Corporation (MIDC), Satara. The order passed by MIDC on 27.8.2007 clearly says that the petitioner is a Transferee. In such circumstances, and when the Transferee has agreed to abide by all terms and conditions which are mentioned in the Documents, more particularly set out in the MIDC Order dated 29.8.2007, then, one fails to understand as to why the petitioner is not joining these parties. The petitioner has challenged the Demand Notice. The petitioner has raised various disputed questions of fact, with regard to the liability of the petitioner. It is his case that he is the Transferee after the property was put up for sale by SICOM pursuant to proceedings under Section 29 of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. I have no doubt in my mind, that if the petitioner approaches SICOM or he approaches the concerned Officers/Authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code raising all factual pleas, they will go into the same and pass appropriate orders and directions in accordance with law. :3: :3: :3: Further, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by such Authorities, then, the remedies provided by the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code are still available. It is not for this court to entertain factual disputes and that too with regard to a recovery commenced by the Tahsildar. Mere annexing of Recovery Notice and raising some pleas would not be proper. In the absence of complete details, so also, of public bodies like SICOM and MIDC, there is no question of entertaining this Writ petition. Petition is summarily dismissed. Needless to state, that if the petitioner desires to avail of the alternate remedies under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code or otherwise, this order would not prevent the petitioner from doing so. All remedies and contentions therein are kept open for being raised and urged. No opinion is expressed thereon. The petition is dismissed as it involves disputed questions of fact and on the ground of alternate and efficacious remedy. :4: :4: :4: ********