1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION ON. 2125 OF 2002 IN WRIT PETITION NO.441 of 1991 The Diocese of Aurangabad and another Applicant. Versus The Cantonment Board Aurangabad through its Executive Officer. Respondents Mr. Satyajit Bora, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. D.V. Soman, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA,JJ. DATE : 4th August, 2010. ORAL ORDER :- 1] By way of present application, the applicant is seeing clarification of the order dated 25/2/2002 2] By way of Writ Petition No. 441/1991, the petitioners had challenged the notice dated 5/1/1991, whereby, the petitioners were directed to demolish the unauthorized construction as stated in the said notice. However, vide communication dated 21/6/1991, the Respondent-Chief Officer had informed the petitioner that the Board had resolved to regularize the unauthorized construction by accepting fees, subject to withdrawal of the petition. 2 3] Subsequently, by communication dated 9/8/1991, the respondent cantonment Board had directed the petitioner to intimate the actual cost of construction of the school building including the area covered by the church. The petitioner had accordingly communicated the cost of construction to be Rs.1,50,000/- vide communication dated 16th August, 1991. Vide communication dated 8/3/2002, the respondent Board issued notice to the petitioners directing the petitioners to take necessary action in accordance with the notice dated 5/1/1991. Hence, the petitioner has approached this court. 4] Since Writ Petition No. 441/1991 was withdrawn accepting the statement made in the communication dated 21/6/1991 and 9th August, 1991, we find that it is not permissible for the respondent Board to revert back to the notice dated 5/1/1991. However, Shri Soman, learned counsel for the respondent Board states that under the garb of the order passed by this court, the petitioners are making heavy construction and claiming regularization thereof also. We make it clear that since the writ petition was withdrawn on the basis of the statement made in the communication dated 21/6/1991 and 9th August, 1991, it is not permissible for the respondent Board to again take recourse to the notice dated 5/1/1991. The respondents are duty bound to regularize the construction which is subject matter of Writ petition No. 441/1991. it is further made clear that the order passed by this court in W.P. No. 441/1991 so also the present order, would not cover any construction which is not the subject matter of notice dated 5/1/1991. 3 5] Civil application disposed of in aforesaid terms. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] grt/wp