1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 3526 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 3526 OF 2011 *** 1. The respondent No.1 has filed a suit for declaration and injunction against Respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. State of Maharashtra and Municipal Council. In that suit, present petitioner sought his impleadment contending that he is reporter of reputed T.V. Channel and social worker. Second ground given was action against unauthorised construction of Respondent No.1 was initiated on his complaint. 2. The trial Court has looked into all these grounds. Trial Court has made certain observations against petitioner but those observations are not relevant at this stage. 3. Learned counsel has contended that in AIR 1991 SC 1901 in para 36 [copy of the judgment is not supplied and there is no such citation] Honourable Apex Court has laid down 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 3526 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. norms to be looked into while examining issue of locus. Attention is also being invited to the judgment of this Court in the case of "Chandrakant Dharma Bhonu V/s Pandurang Ram,chandra Dandekar and another" reported in AIR 2004 Bom. 374. Contention is, this Court has instead of entertaining the challenge in writ petition found it proper to direct petitioner to intervene in a suit already filed in relation to subject matter. 4. These judgments are not relevant here. Trial Court has looked into relevant aspects and I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. Hence, petition is rejected. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:05/05/2011. ans/3526