1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2592 OF 2008 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 26 OF 2009 Shri Ananda Sakharam Jadhav ..Petitioner Vs. Shri Kondiba Narsu Kumbhar and ors. ..Respondents Mr. Balasaheb Deshmukh for petitioner. Mr. N.J. Patil for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr. P.J. Pawar for respondent no.7. Mr. Y.A. Sakhare with Mr. Siddarth Karpe for applicant-Intervener in Cri.APPW No. 26 of 2009. Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for State. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. September 25, 2009. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Balasaheb Deshmukh the learned counsel for the petitioner. On 21/8/2009 we passed an order directing the Municipal Council to decide the pending applications for regularization submitted by the Builder i.e. M/s. A.B. Builders, Mumbai and the Municipal Council was directed to decide these applications within four weeks. We had also made it clear that the illegal construction, which cannot be regularized, shall have to be demolished by the Municipal Council and the undertaking of the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council, who was present before us, 2 was noted down. 2. Mr. N.J. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Council, has placed before us a copy of the order passed by the Municipal Council on 15/9/2009, after hearing all the parties concerned. The said order is in two parts. The first part deals with regularization and the second part deals with the demolition of the illegal construction. As far as the first part is concerned, if the petitioner is not satisfied by the same, his remedy may lie somewhere else and not in this criminal writ petition. On the second issue of illegal construction, the Municipal Council has already directed to demolish the same (the toilet constructed near the stair-case and the mezzanine floor). The builder has been given 15 days time to remove the same and the builder has undertaken to do so at his own expenses. The order also makes it clear that within the stipulated period of 15 days. If the demolition has not done, the Municipal Council shall demolish the same and recover the charges from the builder. 3. C.R. No. 3078 of 1998 was registered at the instance of the Municipal Council against the builder and its partners for violation of the provisions of the M.R.T.P. Act and on investigation Criminal Case No. 2968 of 1998 came to be registered before the learned JMFC at Karad. The said case will have to proceed on its own merits and the prayer for stay to the said proceedings cannot be considered. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed in Cri. Case No. 2968 of 1998, he may have his appropriate remedy by way of an appeal or revision. 4. So far as this petition is concerned, it has served its purpose and the 3 pending applications submitted by the builder have been decided by the Municipal Council and it has taken due steps by its order dated 15/9/2009 for removal of illegal construction in the subject building. 5. Hence the petition is disposed in terms of the order passed by the Municipal Council and we make it clear that this order does not come in the way of the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings against the order of regularization. 6. Criminal Application No. 26 of 2009 does not survive and shall stand disposed as such. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)