11.wp.8222-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.8222 OF 2009 Smt.Manjusha Milind Kulkarni and others. ..Petitioners. Versus Pune Municipal Corporation. ..Respondent. ... Mr.Venkatesh Shastry, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.S.M. Gorwadkar, Advocate for the Respondent. .. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 28, 2010. P.C. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is against the notice dated 15.5.2006 whereby the petitioner was directed to stop work which they had commenced pursuant to a sanctioned 11.wp.8222-09 2 building plan. The reason that was given for issuing that notice was that there was a doubt about the genuineness of the order passed in favour of the petitioner under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. The petitioners have produced documents on record which shows that the order passed in favour of the petitioners by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act was revised by the State of Maharashtra and it was set aside. The order of the State Government was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.2500 of 2008. That Writ Petition was disposed of by Division Bench of this Court by order dated 25th August, 2008 and the order of the State Government was set aside. Thus the order of the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act in relation to whose genuineness doubts were raised and that led to the issuance of the stop work notice has now been confirmed by this Court. In our opinion, therefore, there is no justification for the Corporation not to permit the petitioners to carry on the 11.wp.8222-09 3 work. The notice dated 15.5.2006 impugned in the Petition is, therefore, set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Petition is disposed of. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)