1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.574/2009 Shamkant Kisanrao Rane Age 45 years, Occ-Business. R/o 1, Parijat Sankul,Girna Tank Road, Jalgaon, Dist.Jalgaon .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Urban Development Department Mantralaya,Mumbai-32 (Copy to be served through Government Pleder,High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Commissioner Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,Jalgaon Dist.Jalgaon. .. RESPONDENTS .... Shri A.G.Talhar,Adv.for petitioner. Shri K.G. Patil,AGP for R.1 Shri P.R.Patil,Adv.for R. 2. 2 .... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & R.K.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 03/07/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER HARDAS,J.] : It appears that this petition was heard on 30/1/2009 and at the request of learned counsel for respondent no.2, the matter came to be adjourned for obtaining necessary instructions. We have heard Shri A.G.Talhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGP Shri Patil on behalf of respondent no.1 and Shri P.R.Patil,learned counsel, who accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2. In the light of the fact that the learned counsel for respondents had put in their appearances, we do not deem it necessary to issue any formal order of notice. 2. We accordingly issue rule making it returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, decide this petition finally at this stage. 3. The grievance of the petitioner as can be carved out from the prayer clauses is that the petitioner had submitted an application on 2/9/2008 requesting the respondents to confer the benefit of Transferable Development Right (TDR). Since the aforesaid rights 3 have not been conferred on the petitioner, the petitioner submitted his application dated 2/9/2008. According to the petitioner, the said application has remained pending and has not been decided by the respondents. Mr.P.R.Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.2 very fairly states that the learned counsel does not have the necessary instructions as to whether the said application has been decided or is pending as on today. 4. However, relying upon the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said application is pending, we direct the respondent no.2 to decide the application of the petitioner dated 2/9/08 in accordance with law, if the said application is pending, within eight weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. In the event the aforesaid application has already been decided, we direct the respondents to communicate the decision taken thereon to the petitioner. Rule is thus made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. [R.K.DESHPANDE] [P.V.HARDAS] JUDGE JUDGE umg/wp574-09