1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1084 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1084 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1084 OF 2008 Sunil Tukaram Jagtap. .. Petitioner. vs. Thane Municipal Corporation & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. Pramod N. Patil for Petitioner. Mr. R.S. Apte for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. S.S. Deshmukh for Respondent No. 5. Mr. R.P. Behare, Addl.G.P., for Respondent no.7. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: 21st FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE: 21st FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE: 21st FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the he along with respondent nos. 5 and 6 were carrying on the business of hotel and lodging in the name and style 2 of Tarang Hotel & Sadhana Lodge (Yogsadhana Hotel & Sadhana Lodge) at Modella Check Naka, LBS Road, Thane 400 604. 4. According to the petitioner, the respondent Municipal Corporation took up the project of road widening under the Integrated Road Widening Scheme of Thane Municipal Corporation because of which the structure and establishment of the petitioner and respondent nos. 5 and 6 came to be demolished. As a policy matter it was decided by resolution passed by the respondent Thane Municipal Corporation that the structures which were demolished under the said Scheme were to be provided with alternative plots and accordingly all the affected persons were provided with such alternative plots. But in the case of the petitioner an exception was made as ignoring the claim of the petitioner, the respondent Corporation allotted the plot to respondent no. 5 who is councillor of Thane Municipal Corporation and, therefore, the petitioner seeks a writ in the form of direction of this Court against respondent nos. 1 to 4 to forthwith cancel the allotment of the plot nos 4 and 5 to respondent no. 5 and demolish the construction carried out by them and direct them to forthwith allot plot to the petitioner. 5. In our view, the subject matter of the petition in substance relates to the rights of the partners, if 3 at all a partnership existed between them in the eyes of law and as claimed by the petitioner. 6. The issues raised by the petitioner give rise to the disputed questions of facts from which right to claim alternative plot is required to be determined amongst the contesting respondents. Otherwise, in so far as the Municipal Corporation is concerned it has complied with the policy decision and allotted the alternative plots to respondent no. 5. The petitioner is at liberty to seek alternative remedy available to him under the law. We, therefore, dismiss this petition with the aforesaid observation. We make it clear that all contentions and issues raised in the petition in respect of the right claimed by the petitioner for allotment of plot are kept open. 7. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (J.N. Pastel, J.) (J.N. Pastel, J.) (J.N. Pastel, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.)