1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2804/2010 Ravindra Diwakar Ghotekar Vs. The Regional Director of Municipal Administrative, Nagpur and others. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. S.P. Bhandrakar, for the petitioner. Mr. M.I Dhatrak, for the respondent no.3. Mr. Joshi, AGP for respondents 1 and 2. CORAM ; B. P. DHARMADHIKRI, J. DATED : 21st October, 2010. Earlier application filed by the petitioner under Section 308 of Maharashtra Municipalities Act was disposed on 2nd July 2001 by Collector holding that the petitioner is consented to rate to be fixed by Municipal Council. That rent was later on fixed by Resolution at Rs. 8281/- per year. This resolution was not subjected to any challenge. After seven years the petitioner sought reopening of those proceedings as for arrears of seven years amounting to Rs. 56490/- the shop block was sought to be sealed by Municipal Council. By impugned order dated 11th February 2010 that review/revision application has been rejected. During pendency of this writ petition only to show his bonafides petitioner has deposited amount of Rs. 30,000/-. According to Advocate Bhandarkar some of the 2 tenants has challenged resolution of Municipal Council as arbitrary before Civil Court and Civil Court declared yearly rent of Rs. 200/- per annum. Municipal Council has challenged that determination of Civil Court in appeal and the appeal is still pending. Learned counsel states that if ultimately appeals are allowed, the petitioner shall pay balance amount and undertaking in that respect can be obtained from him by Municipal Council. Advocate Dhatrak has also supported the impugned order. According to them, the petitioner consented to arrangement and agreement dated 27.9.2002 was entered into between the parties. Advocate Dhatrak states that for a period of seven years the rent has not been paid though possession has been enjoyed. According to him, therefore there is nothing wrong in the impugned order and the case of the petitioner cannot be seen in the background of civil litigation going on. Facts before this Court clearly show that order-sheet dated 2.7.2001 passed by the Collector, Chandrapur was never challenged by petitioner. It appears that an agreement was also to be entered into between the parties and draft thereof was prepared on 27.9.2001. The draft appears to be signed on behalf of Municipal Council by its President and by witnesses as also by petitioner. Respondent no.1 in revision has looked into all relevant aspects and found that challenge at the instance of petitioner was not maintainable. As I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity with the impugned order. No case is made out to warrant 3 interference in writ jurisdiction. Hence, petition is rejected. No costs. At this stage, Shri Bhandarkar states that petitioner should be given liberty to challenge the said resolution. Advocate Dhatrak is opposing request. If the petitioner has got such remedy before the competent forum, he is free to take recourse in accordance with law and no liberty in that respect is expressly required for that purpose. JUDGE ambulkar