1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4714 OF 2009 Indus Towers Ltd. Company New Delhi and Another. ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioners. Shri. V.H. Dighe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri. Amol A Jagatkar, Advocate for respondent No.3. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE: 8th DECEMBER 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Council submitted that as complaints were received by the Municipal Council the work of erection of the tower was stopped by the impugned communication. A resolution was adopted on 27-2-2009 for cancelling the permission and 2 the same was communicated to the petitioners. Copy of the resolution is also placed on record today by the counsel appearing for the Municipal Council. 3) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the Municipal Council granted permission to construct and erect the tower they have no right and authority to stop the work as the petitioner have invested huge amount to erect the generator, shed etc. No reasons are assigned by the Municipal Council for stoppage of the work. 4) The learned counsel for the Municipal Council submits that certain complaints were received in respect of erection of the towers by the petitioner and some Councilors raised objections, therefore, the Municipal Council passed resolution dated 27th February 2009 and directed the petitioners to stop the work until further orders. 3 5) We find that the Chief Officer, Municipal Council Khultabad will have to hear the petitioners, consider the record and pass a reasoned order taking into consideration the legal provisions. We, therefore, direct the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Khultabad to pass appropriate orders within two weeks from today after considering the record and hearing the petitioners and the objectors and communicate the same to the petitioners. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by the said order the petitioner s are entitled to resort to appropriate remedies as permissible in law. All the issues are kept open. 6) The writ petition is disposed of. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.4714.09