1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 416 OF 2010 1. Shri Kiran s/o Ravindra Wadhi, Age 40 years, Occu.Business, R/o C/o S.K.Mahajan, 309, Akashya Deep, Town Centre, CIDCO,Aurangabad 2. Sau.Vandana w/o Kiran Wadhi, Age 35 years, Occu.Business, R/o C/o S.K.Mahajan, 309, Akashya Deep, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The City & Industrial Development Corporation, Aurangabad N-5, CIDCO, Aurangabad 3. The Assistant Executive Engineer (NOC Cell), CIDCO, Aurangabad N-5, CIDCO, Aurangabad .. RESPONDENTS Shri Girish Rane, Advocate for petitioners Shri S.K.Tambe, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondent No.1 Shri A.S.Bajaj, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 7th April, 2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioners, praying therein for issuance of a writ for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 16.12.2009 issued by respondent No.3 and also prays for issuance of a writ directing respondents 2 and 3 to issue completion certificate to the petitioners in respect of construction on Plot No.242 and 243, N-1/B Sector, Aurangabad. 3. We need not dilate on the factual aspect of the matter as it would suffice to state that the building permission came to be granted to the petitioners but the petitioners failed to complete the construction within the period stipulated in the said permission. The petitioners thereafter applied for issuance of a no objection certificate and the completion certificate but the same came to be refused by respondent No.3 by the impugned communication on the ground that the petitioners had failed to carry out the construction within the stipulated period. 3 4. The petitioners have pleaded several difficulties which prevented the petitioners from completing the construction within the stipulated period. We have examined those grounds and we find that the petitioners have made out sufficient cause and accordingly, we allow this petition and direct the respondents to issue no objection certificate, as per rules, to the petitioners. The petitioners may thereafter apply to the competent authority for issuance of the completion certificate. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/416.10wp)