1 PIL.211.2009(7).sxw mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 211 OF 2009 Saleem Ahmed Ab. Rauf & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs. Melegaon Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. N.R. Bubna, Advocate for Petitioner Mrs. J.S. Pawar, Addl. G.P for Respondent No.3 for State Mr. R.P. Ojha, Advocate for Respondent No.4 Mr. S.S. Patwardhan, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 19 DECEMBER 2011. P.C. By this PIL the petitioners challenge the order dated 9 July 2009 of respondent No.3 allowing the appeal of respondent No.4 against the order of the District Magistrate refusing to grant licence to run the video halls in survey No. 192/1, Plot No.7 of Malegaon City. The petitioner contends that the Additional District Magistrate, Nashik had refused to grant permission by his order dated 21 January 2009 and the District Magistrate had confirmed the said order. However, the respondent State has allowed the appeal. 2. It is submitted that the Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Malegaon by his order dated 18 July 2007 held that the construction put up by the respondent No.4 is contrary to the building plans and that the permission was granted only for construction of shops and the respondent had acted in 2 PIL.211.2009(7).sxw contravention of the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.4 is not in a position to show that the said order dated 18 July 2007 of the Municipal Commissioner has been set aside by the higher authorities or modified by the same authority. 4. In view of the above, respondent No.4 cannot be permitted to run video hall in the place in question. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 9 July 2009 of respondent No.3 in Appeal No.PPE 20095/VS5 Exhibit-B to the petition. 5. In the result the petition is allowed, but it is clarified that in case the Municipal Corporation issues any permission regularising the unauthorised construction in accordance with law in favour of respondent No.4, it will be open to respondent No.4 to move the District Magistrate again. 6. Learned Counsel for respondent No.4 states that the respondent No.4 has already filed application before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Malegaon and the said application is pending with the said Municipal Corporation. The same shall be decided within a period of 6 weeks. 7. Learned Counsel for respondent No.4 prays for stay of this order for a period of 8 weeks. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant the request. The request is, therefore, rejected. CHIEF JUSTICE ROSHAN DALVI, J.