: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8958 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.8958 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.8958 OF 2007 M/s.Suvrutti Enterprises .. Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Vishal Thaker i/b.Mr.A.H.Patil for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Rao for respondent No.2. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.3,4 and 6. Mr.L.H.Belindage for respondent No.5. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE : 26th June, 2008. DATE : 26th June, 2008. DATE : 26th June, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 27.9.2006 passed by the State Government. 2. Admitted facts are that the petitioner had applied for building permission to the respondent No.2 Corporation. That permission was granted by the Corporation in favour of the petitioner. 3. The respondent No.5 filed an Appeal under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, before the State Government. To that Appeal, the present petitioner was joined as a respondent. : 2 : 4. Admitted position is that the State Government decided the Appeal by the order dated 27.9.2006 without issuing notice to the petitioner. By the order impugned, the State Government has allowed the Appeal filed by the respondent No.5 and has issued certain directions which operate against the petitioner, to the Planning Authority. There can be no debate that when the petitioner has been joined as respondent and when the State Government passed an order in that Appeal which has adverse consequences on the petitioner, the petitioner was required to be heard in accordance with the principles of the natural justice. What further transpired was that the Appeal was filed under Section 47 of the Town Planning Act. 5. Perusal of the provisions of Section 47 of the Town Planning Act, prima-facie, show that an Appeal can be filed by the person who has applied for building permission and who has been granted building permission subject to condition or has been refused the building permission. Therefore, while deciding the Appeal, it was for the State Government to decide whether the State has jurisdiction to entertain the Appeal. It further appears that the State Government has observed that the Appeal has been filed by respondent No.5 in terms of the order of the High Court dated 23.9.2002, a copy of the order dated : 3 : 23.9.2002 passed by this Court has been produced before us but it does not appear from that order that the High Court has issued any such direction. Therefore, that issue will also have to be re-examined by the Government. 6. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice :- a) The order dated 27.9.2006 passed by the State Government is set aside. b) The Appeal filed by respondent No.5 is remitted back to the State Government for hearing and decision in accordance with law and the observations made above. 7. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)