(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1649 OF 2011 WITH Jawaharlal s/o. Nandlal Agrawal, Age : 52 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Tilak Nagar, Kannad, District : Aurangabad (Through G.P.A. Holder, Shri Fakir Rajjak Rangrej, Age : 41 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Kannad, Taluka : Kannad, District : Aurangabad. .. Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra (Through Government Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad), and 3 others. .. Respondents. ....................... WRIT PETITION NO. 1660 OF 2011 WITH (2) Rajkumar s/o. Shantilal Kedia, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Samarthnagar, Kannad, District : Aurangabad (Through G.P.A. Holder, Shri Fakir Rajjak Rangrej, Age : 41 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Kannad, Taluka : Kannad, District : Aurangabad. .. Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra (Through Government Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad), and 3 others. .. Respondents. ....................... WRIT PETITION NO. 1671 OF 2011 Shaikh Ismail s/o. Shaikh Ibrahim, Age : 47 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Bada Bangla, Kannad, District : Aurangabad. (Through G.P.A. Holder, Shri Fakir Rajjak Rangrej, Age : 41 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Kannad, Taluka : Kannad, District : Aurangabad. .. Petitioner (3) versus The State of Maharashtra (Through Government Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad), and 3 others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. M.P. Kale, Advocate, for petitioners in all three petitions. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, Mr. S.K. Tambe, and Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleaders, for respondent nos.1 to 3, in respective petitions. Mr. S.S. Shete, Advocate, for respondent no.4 in W.P. No. 1660/2011 (Absent). Respondent no.4 served in W.P. No. 1671/2011 (Absent). ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 18TH APRIL 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. M.P. Kale, appearing for respective petitioners, and learned AGPs Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, Mr. S.K. Tambe, and Mr. D.R. Korde, for respondent nos.1 to 3. (4) 2. The petitioners have been denied "no objection certificate" by Chief Officer of Municipal Council on 25-9-2008. That order stipulates that it is in accordance with the letter of Collector dated 13-3-2006. The petitioners then filed separate revisions under Section 318 of the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils), (Nagar Panchayats) And Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (For short "1965 Act"), against this communication. There was delay of about 3 months and 6 days in filing them. The Additional Divisional Commissioner has not condoned that delay. 3. Adv. Mr. M.P. Kale, for the petitioners, contends that the delay occurred because of inaction on the part of General Power of Attorney and his illness. The view taken by the authority is, therefore, too technical. He further states that the General Power of Attorney was also advised to file revision under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. 4. Learned AGPs appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3 point out that the communication dated 13-3-2006 issued by Collector is because of his orders in Case No. 30/2005 and those orders at Exhibit "E" with petitions are obtained by three (5) residents of Kannad town by filing proceedings under Section 320 of 1965 Act, and an appeal under Section 247 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Those orders are not questioned by the petitioner. 5. It is apparent that the petitioners have to question orders of Collector, Aurangabad, in Case No. 30/2005 at Exhibit "E" in respective petitions. Unless and until those orders are questioned before competent court, no relief can be given to the petitioners. 6. Hence, with liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings so as to challenge those orders, present petitions are disposed of. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1660etc