1 WP2834/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2834 OF 2010 Shri Dilip B. Sathe ...Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents Mr Sagar Joshi for Petitioner. Mr V.C. Ghosalkar for Respondent No.4. Mr S.G. Aney, Sr. Counsel i/b Mr H.V. Bhadbhade for Respondent No.20. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA JJ. DATE : 16TH NOVEMBER 2011. 2 WP2834/10 P.C. :- 1] By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29th January 2010 passed by the Regional Director of the Municipal Administration. The relevant facts are that the Municipal Council, Ratnagiri passed a resolution dated 12th December 2008 for regularisation of the construction made by the original respondent No.19. The implementation of that resolution was stayed by order dated 6th March 2009 made by the Collector, Ratnagiri in exercise of powers under section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act 1965. That order of the Collector was challenged before the Regional Director of Municipal Administration. The Regional Director by his order dated 29th January 2010 has set aside the order of the Collector, staying implementation of the resolution dated 12th December 2008. However, he has also directed that that resolution can be implemented only after amendments, which are indicated in the order, to the Development 3 WP2834/10 Control Regulations are made. It is common ground before us that now amendments to the Development Control Regulations have been made. However, there is dispute between the parties whether the amended provisions will be applicable to the regularisation of the structure which is subject matter of this petition and whether because of those amendments to the Development Control Regulations, the structure can be regularised. In our opinion, as the Regional Director himself has directed that unless and until the Development Control Regulations are amended, the resolution of the Municipal Council cannot be implemented, it will be necessary for the Regional Director to consider in view of the amendments to the Development Control Regulations whether after the amendment the resolution of the Municipal Council can be implemented. Obviously, before making that order, the Regional Director has to grant an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondent No.20 who claims to be successor-in-title of respondents No.19. The Regional Director will have to make a speaking 4 WP2834/10 order. In this view of the matter therefore, the petition is disposed off with a direction that the resolution of the Municipal Council dated 12th December 2008 shall not be implemented till the Regional Director considers the question whether that resolution can be implemented in view of the amendment in the Development Control Regulations as per this order. Petition is disposed off. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE ANOOP V. MOHTA )