1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6134 OF 2009 Iqbal Sadik Shaikh & Ors. .. Petitioners. Vs Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. .. Respondents -- Shri Prathamesh Bhargude for the Petitioners. Shri A.P. Kulkarni for Respondent No.1 Shri S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for State-Respondent No.2. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 29TH APRIL 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent. I have heard the learned AGP for the Respondent No.2- State. 2. The Petitioners by filing this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have challenged the discretionary order passed by both the Courts below by which the relief of temporary injunction has been denied to the Petitioners. The Petitioners had earlier filed a Suit No.485 of 2008 against the Respondents on 17th March, 2008. The case made out by the Petitioners in the said suit was that a certificate of regularization was 2 issued on 23rd January, 2008 and notwithstanding the said certificate of regularization, a part of the suit structure was demolished by the Respondents. An earlier suit was for mandatory and prohibitory injunction. An application for temporary injunction was made in the earlier suit seeking mandatory injunction for restoration of the demolished part of the structure. A prayer for temporary injunction was made restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents from demolishing the remaining construction. The application for injunction made by the Petitioners was rejected as the Trial Court noted that the certificate of regularization relied upon by the Petitioners was already cancelled by the State Government. Thereafter, a fresh suit was filed by the Petitioners on 22nd September, 2008 for a declaration that the cancellation of the certificate is bad in law. An application for temporary injunction was made seeking temporary injunction restraining the 2nd Respondent from demolishing the remaining structure. The Trial Court rejected the application and by the impugned judgment and order, the appeal against the order of the Trial Court has been dismissed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the earlier suit has been filed at a stage when the Petitioners were not aware about the revocation of the regularization certificate. Therefore, the second suit was filed for challenging the action of revocation of said certificate. He submitted that in the subsequent suit, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court ought to have protected the part of the Petitioners’ 3 structure which has not been demolished earlier. 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The same relief of temporary injunction was sought in the earlier suit. The order of temporary injunction was declined to the Petitioners in the earlier suit. In the subsequent suit, the prayer which was already rejected in the earlier suit has been again rejected. The result of grant of regularization certificate was that the unauthorized structure of the Petitioners was protected. Now the certificate of regularization has been revoked. Therefore, the Courts below have declined to grant discretionary and equitable relief for temporary injunction in favour of the Respondents in the subsequent suit. 5. Hence, no case for interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. The Writ Petition is rejected. However, all contentions of the parties on merits of the pending suit are kept open. (A.S.OKA, J)