1 s. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5376/2005 Sabir Ali Qureshi Petitioner Vs. Indian Institute of Technology & Ors. Respondents Mr.A.C.Singh i/b Mr.R.O.Pathak for petitioner Mr.Rupesh Padwal i/b Mr.V.Y.Murudkar for respondent CORAM :J.N.Patel,& Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,JJ. DATE :23rd June,2009. P.C. (J.N.Patel,J.) . Heard by consent. Rule returnable forthwith. 2] The petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. The petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Estate Officer,as well as the appellate authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants )Act,1971.It is not disputed that alongwith the petitioner there were several occupants on the subject land who have been sought to be removed by the Estate Officer by passing common order. This order came to be challenged by the occupants before the Principal Judge of the City Civil Courts at Mumbai who by common order disposed of their appeal including that of the petitioner . Aggrieved by the said decision the occupants 2 including the petitioners filed the writ petitions. In group of petitions Writ petition no.4292/2003 filed by Ramkishan Jaiswal was the lead petition. Before the petitions were disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 8th April,2008,civil applications were filed for interim relief seeking stay of the order which came to be rejected ,therefore petitioners moved the Supreme Court in the matter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.7874/2004 ordered to remit the matter back to the High Court by modifying the order by issuing certain directions in the matter. This is how the matters came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 8th April,2008. 3] It so happened that this petition appears to have been unattended by the petitioner and his advocate and , therefore, remained to be decided. On one occasion it was dismissed and thereafter restored. 4] We are informed by the leaned counsel for the petitioner that now all the other occupants have preferred appeal against the order of Estate Officer which came to be passed after the High Court remitted the matter to the Estate Officer. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances the petitioner’s case may also be remitted to the Estate Officer for fresh consideration in terms of 3 Judgment and Order dated 8th April, 2008 passed by the High Court. 5] The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that so far as the relief sought by the petitioner to remit the matter back to the Estate Officer is concerned by relying upon the judgment and order in group of petitions filed by Ramkishan Jaiswal and others it is specifically mentioned by the Division Bench that the orders in so far as they operate against the petitioners are only set aside and if there are any other persons against whom also the orders operate, the orders will stand and can be executed by the respondent no.1 and therefore, the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 6] In our view the case of the petitioner cannot be discriminated as his petition was pending in this Court when the Division Bench disposed of the group of Writ Petitions on 8th April, 2008 and,therefore, by adopting the doctrine of parity of reasons the decision of the Court in the group of petitions would squarely cover the case of the petitioner who is similarly placed. 7] Therefore, we quash and set aside the impugned order and remit the case of the petitioner to the Estate Office / 4 Respondent no.2 for hearing and decision in accordance with law. All other directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment and order dated 8th April,2009 would also be applicable to the case of the Petitioner. The Estate Officer will decide the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. Petitioner to communicate the judgment and order to the Estate Officer within two weeks. Failure on the part of petitioner to communicate as directed will result in dismissal of this petition. 8] Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs. (J.N.Patel,J.) (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.) 5