1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3337/2010 Mrs. Archana M. Sarve and others Vs. The State of Mah. And others. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. B. G. Kulkarni, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. Anilkumar, Advocate for the Intervenor Mr. S.K. Mishra, Adv. for respondent no.3-NIT. Mr. Chauhan, Adv. h/f Mr. Kaptan, Adv. for respondent no.2. CORAM :B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : 23/11/2011. Heard Mr. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Anilkumar, Advocate for applicant-intervenor and Mr. Mishra, Advocate for respondent no.3-NIT, Mr. Chauhan, Advocate holding for Mr. Kaptan, Advocate for respondent no.2. Nobody appears for respondent no.4 though he is served. On 10th October, 2011 Advocate Shamkuwar had appeared for respondent no.4 and sought time of two weeks to file reply. Accordingly, time was given. This Court has observed that if the affidavits are not filed by said date, respondent no.4 as also proposed intervenor shall deposit an amount of Rs. 10,000/- each as costs. The proposed intervenor has filed its reply. However, 2 respondent no.4 has not filed his reply and has not deposited costs. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it has become clear that because of earlier order of this Court dated 3rd March 2011 in Writ Petition No. 1097/2011 proposed intervenor was permitted to file application under Section 44 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 to the Planning Authority namely respondent no. 2 and respondent no.2 was directed to decide it in time bound fashion. The decision was to be taken within four weeks from the date of receipt of such application. The parties were directed to maintain status quo till then. If the order of Municipal Commissioner was found adverse, intervenor was given further time of two weeks to take appropriate steps to challenge the same. Advocate Anilkumar states that accordingly intervenor has filed that application and it is still pending. He points out that because of some change in policy envisaged by State Government, hearing has not taken place. Advocate Kulkarni contends that application under Section 44 needed to be decided in accordance with law in time bound manner as directed by this Court. There are time bound directions issued by this Court and therefore, respondent no.2 – Municipal 3 Corporation has to comply with those directions. If it was not complied with, respondent no.2 has to approach this Court with appropriate application. The respondent no.2 has not moved any such application and proposed intervenor has also not sought any extension of time. In this situation, we find that earlier directions issued by this Court on 3rd March 2011 in Writ Petition No. 1097/2011 govern the fate of this petition. Unless and until that exercise is completed, the grievance of the present petitioner cannot be looked into. We, therefore, direct respondent to complete that exercise in accordance with law in time bound manner within further time of four weeks from today. With liberty to the petitioner to approach again to this Court if they aggrieved thereafter, we dispose of present writ petition. It is made clear that while considering application under Section 44 moved by the proposed intervenor Company, respondent no.2 shall also consider the objection raised by the petitioner and if necessary grant opportunity of hearing to the proposed intervenor and present petitioner. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.