1 W.P. 9147.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9147 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders ................................ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 14/12/2011. Mr. R.P.Adgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Deshpande, Advocate for Resp. No. 1. ..................... PER COURT : 1. The present petitioner is the original plaintiff, who had filed Suit for declaration and injunction. The petitioner also filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from constructing mobile tower. The trial Court allowed the said application. Aggrieved thereby the present petitioner preferred Appeal. The District Court allowed the Appeal and rejected the temporary injunction application of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Mr. Adgaonkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the respondent is trying to erect mobile tower on the wall of the petitioner. Even the 2 W.P. 9147.2011 respondent does not have the permission from the competent authority. All these facts have not been taken into consideration by the District Court. The trial Court on appreciation of all these facts, has clamped injunction on the respondent, but the District Court has vacated the same without any proper reasonings. 3. Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the permission to erect the mobile tower has not been granted because of the pendency of the present litigation and more particularly the order of the injunction which was passed by the trial Court. The defendant is erecting the mobile tower on his property and not on the property of the petitioner. The respondent can not be restrained from enjoying his ownership rights over his property. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the impugned orders. 5. It appears that presently the respondent does not have permission to erect the mobile tower. He can not erect the said tower without the permission from the competent authority. 6. The competent authority has to grant permission after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects including the 3 W.P. 9147.2011 right of a party over particular property. In such circumstances, there is no need to grant any injunction. In case, the permission is granted by the competent authority and the respondent erects the Mobile tower, the same would be subject to the decision in the Suit. 7. In view of the above, I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the observations that in the event the permission is granted and the respondent erects Mobile tower, the same would be subject to the final decision in the Suit. The trial Court shall expedite the hearing of the Suit. The pleadings are complete. The trial Court shall decide the Suit within the period of nine ( 9 ) months from today. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/W.P. 9147.2011