1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2840 OF 2010 (Jitesh Tarachand Majethiya vs. The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JUNE 29, 2010. Shri Khapre, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sonare, learned AGP for respondents No.1 & 2 and Shri Ghare, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Collector has passed final orders in review proceedings on 24.06.2010 and because of earlier stay order passed by this Court on 22.06.2010 it could not be implemented till today. He is seeking time of 15 days to challenge those orders and requesting for continuation of the interim order in the meanwhile. His contention is, Government Agency i.e. Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran has been side tracked on the ground that conditions imposed by it were not acceptable but similar condition imposed by a private agency has been accepted. Shri Ghare, learned counsel opposes further continuation of interim order. He points out that matter pertains to scheme for water supply to Akot town and it 2 is already delayed. There is already a LAQ in the matter. According to him, the tender process can be continued further and matter can be examined by the Competent Authority in challenge being raised by the petitioner. His submission is, the revision filed before the Additional Commissioner, used as lever to defeat the review proceedings before the Additional Collector, had no bearing on matter before the Collector. The Collector had passed orders under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act partly in favour of the petitioner and partly in favour of Respondent No.3. Municipal Council contending that Section 320 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act permits it to move the Collector in review even under Section 308 of the Act, had sought review of the order operating against it. The petitioner challenged adverse part of that order in revision. The revision filed by the petitioner is still pending. In these circumstances, it is apparent that recording of any finding by this Court at this stage will definitely prejudice the cause either of the petitioner or of Municipal Council. I have perused note sheets maintained by Municipal Council and the conditions imposed by the Government consultant and private management consultant. I am satisfied that some time needs to be given to the petitioner to challenge the final order of Collector dated 24.06.2010. Considering the urgency of 3 the matter, time till 05.7.2010 is given to the petitioner for the said purpose. The petitioner shall furnish advance copy of his challenge to Respondent No. 3 – Municipal Council. The forum before which the challenge is to be filed, shall attempt to dispose of that challenge as early as possible and in any case within a period of four weeks from 5th July 2010. The parties can address that authority on 05.07.2010 on further continuation of interim order. It is made clear that this Court has avoided to make any observations on the merits of the controversy and said authority shall independently evaluate the arguments in the light of records produced before it and arrive at its own conclusions. The interim order granted on 22.06.2010 to continue till 05.07.2010. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.