1 W.P.No.11281/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.11281 OF 2010. Kadar Khan S/o Sher Khan, and others ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.D.P.Palodkar, advocate for the petitioners. Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.A.M.Karad, advocate for the Respondent No.4. Mr.S.R.Barlinge, advocate for the Respondent No. 5. ... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 01.03.2011. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2 W.P.No.11281/10 2. The petitioners challenge commencement certificate issued by Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, dated 3.12.2010, in favour of Respondent Sk.Aftab S/o Sk.Iklakh Ahmed in respect of CTS No.11594. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that by communication dated 4.9.2010, Assistant Director, Town Planning, Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, informed the Respondent Sk.Aftab that his application for seeking permission to construct can not be considered. The learned counsel alleges that due to pressure, the Corporation authorities over- turned their decision and granted commencement certificate. 4. Mr.S.R.Barlinge, learned counsel submits that the parties are litigating in Civil suit before the Civil Court and the proceeding initiated by the petitioners is pending before the Wakf Tribunal. Against the order passed by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioners, the Respondent No.5 preferred Civil Revision 3 W.P.No.11281/10 Application No.37/2011. By an order dated 18.2.2011, the learned Single Judge (Coram :A.V.Nirgude,J.), passed following order : "1. Heard. 2. In view of the revenue record mainly P.R.Card, which shows the latest position of title and possession, the effect of the impugned order dated 14th January, 2011 on Exh.5, by the learned Presiding Officer, Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Suit No.54 of 2010, is kept in abeyance till disposal of the C.R.A. 3. Issue notice to respondents Nos. 4 and 5, returnable on 21st March, 2011. 4. Stand over to 2lst March, 2011." The learned counsel submits that in light of the same, no interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is required. 4 W.P.No.11281/10 5. We find that the parties are litigating in respect of subject plot in the alternate forums. 6. The Civil Revision Application is also pending before the learned Single Judge, wherein notices are issued returnable on 21.3.2011. It is stated that the petitioners appeared before the learned Single Judge and argued their case. 7. In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference in our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is warranted. 8. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. 9. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of this petition. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (NARESH H.PATIL,J.) asp/office/wp11281.10 5 W.P.No.11281/10