13.wp.1954-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1954 OF 2009 Shri V.V. Raikar and another. ..Petitioners. Versus City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & 2 others. ..Respondents. ... Mr.Rajadhaksha, Advocate a/w. K.A.A. Khan, Advocate i/b. M/s. M. Tripathi & Co. for the petitioners. Mr.A.M. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 3. Mr.A.A. Garge, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : 26th JUNE, 2009. P.C. :- 1. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner is that he was alloted a plot which he developed. Condition was that the respondent shall develop the area lay-out, road etc. Although the allotment is made to the petitioner in 2006 till date no infrastructure has been provided by the respondent. In reply to the one of his letters, written on 17th March, 2008, the respondent - CIDCO informed the petitioner that they have taken up the development of plots and roads in sector 29 & 30 and the work was in progress. The petitioner’s plot is plot No.11 and is in Sector 29. In view of this letter, we do not think that this Court can give any direction to the respondents to provide infrastructure within a given period of time, as such a 13.wp.1954-09 2 relief can be considered to be granted on various factors which may be decided in a Suit as primarily the relations between the petitioner and the respondents are governed by an agreement. However, the petitioner has drawn our attention to Section 114 of the M.R.T.P. Act. We have read the provision. The liability of providing infrastructure for the new townships and new town is on the respondent. But that will not be sufficient for us to fix the time. With these observations, Writ Petition is disposed of. [BILAL NAZKI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]