1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4335 /2010 (Bharat M Parate and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : D.D.SINHA & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ DATED : 6th April, 2011. Heard Mr.S.P.Kshirsagar, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. N.W.Sambre, for Respondent No.2. This Writ Petition is directed against the impugned communication dated 23.8.2010 issued by the Nagpur Improvement Trust ( in short “NIT”), whereby the petitioners have been directed to remove the encroachment committed by them within a stipulated period, failing which appropriate steps in accordance with law to remove the same shall be taken by the authorities concerned. Mr Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order/communication /notice issued by the NIT is totally misconceived and without authority of law. He further submitted that the petitioners, in view of the Government Resolution dated 2 6th April 2010, are protected, however, by the impugned communication issued by the NIT is by exceeding the authority and jurisdiction and by ignoring the said Government Resolution. Mr.N.W.Sambre, learned counsel for respondent no.2 – NIT, has submitted that though the impugned notice dated 23.8.2010 is styled as a notice under section 90 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act,1936 ( in short “the said Act”) however, section 90 deals with the powers to make regulations of the NIT whereas the impugned notice, in fact, is issued under sections 104 and 106 of the said Act. It is submitted that due to inadvertence, the impugned notice came to be issued u/s 90 of the said Act, was issued. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the impugned notice. The impugned notice appears to have been issued under sections 104 and 106 of the said Act, however due to inadvertence, the same is shown to have been issued u/s 90 of the said Act whereby the petitioners are directed to remove the encroachment alleged to have been committed by the petitioners within a stipulated period failing which appropriate action shall be taken by the NIT. Considering the facts and circumstances of the 3 present case, it will be appropriate for the petitioners to file a reply to the impugned show- cause notice and the NIT shall take a decision by following the principles of natural justice. The petitioners undertake to file reply to the impugned show-cause notice dated 23.8.2010 issued by the NIT within a period of one week and we direct the Competent Authority to take a decision in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard by following the principles of natural justice, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such a reply. If the decision is adverse to the petitioners, the same need not be given an effect to for a period of one week from the date of decision of the NIT. The issues raised in the petition are kept open. Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE sahare