1 WP 3496.2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3496 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mrs. M.A.Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner. ............................. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :11/10/2011 PER COURT : 1. Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have raised preliminary objection that the petitioners have alternate efficacious remedy. 2. Section 35 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation Act [ For short, ‘ said Act ’ ] provides for the remedy of Revision. Mrs. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned in the present Writ Petition is per-se and ex-facie illegal and so this Court can entertain the Writ Petition, more particularly when it is pending for more than a year. 2 WP 3496.2010 3. In view of the fact that Section 35 of the said Act provides for a remedy of Revision, I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of Revision U/s 35 of the said Act. The authority before whom the Revision would be filed, shall take into consideration the time spent in prosecuting the present Writ Petition. 4. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, the learned counsel submits that the proposal U/s 32 ( 1 ) as directed to be submitted vide the impugned order, is not yet submitted. If the same is not submitted, then the status-quo in respect of that be maintained for two ( 2 ) weeks from today. Needless to state, after the lapse of two ( 2 ) weeks this protection would come to and end. 5. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. I have not considered any of the arguments of the learned counsel for the respective parties on the points raised in the Writ Petition. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 3496.2010 3 WP 3496.2010