https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178554 An available statutory appeal, already invoked and pending, weighed against entertaining a parallel writ petition seeking substantially the same relief, making writ jurisdiction inappropriate. The statutory deeming permission under Section 13(3) of the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974 did not arise because the original application had been rejected within the prescribed sixty days. After that rejection was quashed, a fresh order passed on judicial direction was not required to comply again with the original sixty-day period, and the deeming fiction did not apply to the remand decision. The challenge to the High Court's view therefore failed. en-us Tue, 13 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Jul 2016 15:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178554 An available statutory appeal, already invoked and pending, weighed against entertaining a parallel writ petition seeking substantially the same relief, making writ jurisdiction inappropriate. The statutory deeming permission under Section 13(3) of the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974 did not arise because the original application had been rejected within the prescribed sixty days. After that rejection was quashed, a fresh order passed on judicial direction was not required to comply again with the original sixty-day period, and the deeming fiction did not apply to the remand decision. The challenge to the High Court's view therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 13 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178554