1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6665 OF 2010 (Mohanlal s/o. Arjundas Shamnani Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. D.P. Palodkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 21st October, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Petitioner has filed this petition, raising a grievance that the respondents are not implementing the Revised Development Plan for Muncipal Council, Sillod. 2. In affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, it is stated that the Government has appointed an Officer under section 162 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ('the said Act' for short) to perform the duties of the planning authority. A specific statement is made in the affidavit in reply that the respondent No. 4 has already completed the work under sections 26, 27 and 29 and thereafter, in accordance with the provisions of sections 30 and 28 (4) of the said Act, the Revised Development Plan would be submitted to the State Government. A categorical 2 statement has been made in the affidavit that the respondent No. 1 will sanction the said Revised Development Plan as early as possible. 3. In view of the categorical statement made in the affidavit on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner has served his purpose and the petition is disposed of as such. [ A. A. SAYED ] [ B. R. GAVAI ] Judge Judge ssc/wp6665.10