(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1935 OF 2004 M/s. Baswant Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Through its Directors : Shri Bhimrao s/o. Baswant Patil, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. 119, Shashtri Nagar, Aurangabad) Off. Add. : 115-116, Apna Bazar, SFS Complex, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited, New Aurangabad (Through its Managing Director, CIDCO Bhavan, Belapur, New Mumbai). 2. The Chief Administrator, CIDCO Limited, Udyog Bhavan, New Aurangabad. 3. The Administrator, CIDCO Limited, Udyog Bhavan, New Aurangabad. 4. The Senior Planner (New Towns), CIDCO Limited, Udyog Bhavan, New Aurangabad. (2) 5. Municipal Corporation (Through its Commissioner), Aurangabad. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr. A.M. Karad, Advocate, for respondent no.5. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 27TH AUGUST 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. Leave to add the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, as party respondent. Mr. A.M. Karad, learned Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the added respondent. 2. In view of the orders passed in Civil Application No. 7363/2009, the present petition does not survive, in so far as prayer clause "A" is concerned. In so far as prayer clause "B" is concerned, it is not in dispute, that the notice dated 10th October 2003 was stayed by this court. In view of the directions issued by us, to the respondent nos.1 to 4 i.e. CIDCO, and the respondent no.5 i.e. Municipal Corporation, the (3) impugned notices have become redundant. 3. The petition is, therefore, disposed of with the aforesaid observations. 4. However, it is made clear that in the event, "no objection" certificate is granted by the CIDCO and amalgamation and permission for building construction is granted by the respondent no.5, Municipal Corporation, the respondent, CIDCO, shall be at liberty to recover the amount of additional lease premium for the period between the date of the notice and the date on which it was stayed by this court. 5. Needless to state, that we have not observed anything on the merits of the matter. In the event, the petitioner is aggrieved by any of the orders passed by either respondent nos.1 to 4 i.e. CIDCO or the respondent no.5 i.e. Municipal Corporation, the disposal of the present petition could not come in the way of the petitioner in approaching this court again. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1935