1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5116 OF 2010 Ghansham Namdeorao Gaikwad Age 54 years, Occ-Medical practitioner R/o Plot No.1/J-1/N-12 CIDCO, Aurangabad. .. PETITIONER VERSUS The City and Industrial Development Corporation, Aurangabad Through its Administrator. .. RESPONDENT .... Shri A.V.Patil(Indrale), Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S.Bajaj,Adv. for the respondent. .... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & A.A.SAYED,JJ. DATE : 6 th OCTOBER, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER GAVAI,J.] : 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard counsel for respective parties. By consent of parties, Petition is heard finally at admission stage. 2] By way of present petition, petitioner seeks direction to the sole respondent to grant no objection for grant of Occupancy/Completion certificate in respect of Plot No. 1/J-1/N-12, CIDCO, Aurangabad. It is the contention of the petitioner that though the petitioner had submitted a plan for construction within a stipulated period, the construction could not be completed within a period of one year. It is therefore, submitted that though petitioner applied for the grant of no objection for grant of Occupancy/Completion certificate, respondent authority is not granting the same. 3] Shri Bajaj, learned counsel for respondent-CIDCO 3 authority, contends that in view of directions by this Court dated 13/4/2004 in Civil Application No.7360/2002 in Writ Petition No2338/1999, if a person has not completed construction within a period of 1 year, the completion/occupancy certificate cannot be granted. 4] It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s case is covered by first list of plot holders. In paragraph 3 of the said order, the Court has directed the CIDCO to issue notice to the plot holders directing them to commence the construction within 3 months and complete the same within 1 year and to do the same in accordance with rules framed by CIDCO. The said order also requires the CIDCO to state in the notice that if the plans for approval are not submitted within 4 weeks, CIDCO shall proceed to take over possession of the plots. 5] Undisputedly, the petitioner has submitted the plans within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the notice and also 4 commenced the construction within 3 months. The only question is as to whether respondent CIDCO can deny Completion/Occupancy Certificate for non completion of construction within 1 year from the notice. The petitioner has stated that the construction could not be completed within one year since petitioner was a Government servant and the contractor engaged by him had left the work half way and therefore, 3 months delay has occurred to complete the construction. We find that the reasons given by petitioner for non completion of construction within the prescribed period of one year are genuine. It can also be seen that said order does not state that the Completion/Occupancy certificate should not be granted if construction is not completed within one year. In any case, the respondent CIDCO has not taken possession of the plot in question. 6] In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the petition. Respondent is directed to issue no objection for 5 Completion/Occupancy Certificate in accordance with law within a period of 8 weeks from today. Needless to state that the petitioner would pay any penal/additional premium to the respondent in accordance with the rules. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. (A.A.SAYED) (B.R.GAVAI) JUDGE JUDGE umg/wp5116-10