(1) WP No. 1223/2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1223 OF 2004 Ranjitpalsingh s/o ] Kuldeepsingh Tuteja ] PETITIONER. R/o Aurangabad. ] VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ] Through Secretary,Urban ] RESPONDENTS. Development Deptt., ] Mantralaya, Mumbai & others] ----- Mr.S.V.Gangapurwala, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Tambe, AGP, for respondents No.1 Mr.A.S.Bajaj, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr.M.R.Challani, Advocate, for respondent No.7 ----- CORAM : Naresh H. Patil and N.D.Deshpande, JJ. DATE : 3rd July, 2009. ORAL ORDER [ PER – NARESH H. PATIL, J.] 1] Heard. 2] The learned counsel Shri.S.V.Gangapurwala, for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner and the co-sharers - allottees of subject-plot had internal disputes and, therefore, the subject-plot could not be developed within the stipulated time frame, according to agreement. After the High Court (2) WP No. 1223/2004 passed orders in Writ Petition No.421 of 1986, which was a public interest litigation, the CIDCO issued notices to allottees. Petitioner is one of them. After issuing notice, CIDCO passed order of cancellation of allotment in respect of plot NO.3, situated in Town Center, Section-P1, in CIDCO area at Aurangabad and terminated the agreement of lease. 3] We have heard submissions of learned counsel Shri.Gangapurwala, for petitioner, and Shri.A.S.Bajaj, for respondent CIDCO. We have perused the affidavit in reply filed by Shri.Vasant Gulabrao Salunke on behalf of CIDCO. 4] We do not find any exceptional circumstances emerging out of the facts of this case to deviate from the orders passed earlier by this Court or to grant concession to the petitioners after 20 years to allow them now to develop the property by paying whatever penalty the CIDCO determines, according to the suggestion of learned counsel Shri.V.G.Gangapurwala. At the same time, learned counsel Shri.Bajaj had in clear terms expressed unwillingness of CIDCO to consider the request of petitioner. Instead the counsel for CIDCO submits that the plot, which was allotted for commercial purpose for construction of hospital considering the need of the locality and as a part of development plan, was not developed within time frame and, therefore, the petitioner has now lost (3) WP No. 1223/2004 the right to seek any concession from this Court in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5] We are in conformity with the submissions advanced by learned counsel for CIDCO. We find that plot was allotted in the year 1987-88. More than 20 years have passed. The development of the plot was held up. We do not find any satisfactory reasons put forth by the petitioner for not developing the subject-plot within stipulated time. The alleged internal disputes between the partners inter se would not be a ground for this Court to deviate from the scheme which was approved by CIDCO and the orders passed by this Court in a public interest litigation. There is no merit in the petition. 6] Petition stands dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court stands vacated. 7] The CIDCO is directed to readvertise allotment of subject-plot for commercial purposes for hospital only at the earliest. [ N.D.Deshpande,J.] [ Naresh H. Patil,J.] pcr/o/wp1223.04