1 WP 4895 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4895 of 2009 Kishor Valchand Jain and Anr. ..... Petitioners V/s. Lonavala Municipal Council and Ors. ..... Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1953 OF 2010 Highland Holiday Homes Pvt. Ltd. ...... Applicant V/s. Lonavala Municipal Council and Ors. ...... Respondents Mr.D.H.Mehta a/w Mr.R.R.Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Apte, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.A.A.Garge, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Samir A. Vaidya, for respondent No.3. Mr.V.S.Godbole, AGP, for the State. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 13TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. 1. By way of the above petition, the petitioners have ventilated the grievance in connection with the conduct of the respondent No.3, as according to the petitioners, the respondent No.3 has carried out commercial activities in the form of hotel or holiday home, in the premises which are located in the residential zone. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 has carried out certain unauthorized construction, which is contrary to the building plans, rules and regulation. 2 WP 4895 of 2009 2. This Court has passed various orders from time to time in the above petition and in view of the said orders, the respondent No.1 Lonavala Municipal Council, took appropriate steps in the matter of demolishing unauthorized construction, which construction was carried out contrary to the building plans and contrary to the building regulations. The respondent No.3 has also stopped the use of the premises as commercial or using it as a resort. It is now not in dispute that the respondent No.3 has stopped the use of the said premises for commercial purposes. The respondent No.1 Council has filed an affidavit stating the steps taken by it in this behalf. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that as on today, no grievance of the petitioner survives, as the premises in question are not being used as commercial premises and unauthorized construction has already been demolished. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent No.1 Municipal Council should take appropriate steps in future to see that the premises like the one in the present case, are not put to any commercial use, even though the permission is given for residential purpose. 3. The learned Senior counsel for the Municipal Council Shri R.S.Apte stated that the respondent No.1 Council will take appropriate care in the future so that nobody takes law in his hands and nobody carries out construction contrary to the sanctioned plan. The said 3 WP 4895 of 2009 statement is recorded. 4. Since nothing further survives in the above petition now, it is accordingly disposed of in view of what is stated above. It is clarified that if the respondent No.3 has any grievance in connection with the action taken by the respondent No.1, except the action against the commercial user and unauthorized construction, the former is permitted to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law in this behalf. Needless to say that we have not expressed any opinion in the present petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 states that he will not use the premises as a commercial premises even in future and will continue with the restrictions prescribed in this behalf under the rules and regulations of the Council. He states that he is making this statement after taking instructions from his client namely Mr.Sanjay Bajaj, Director, who is present in the Court. In view of the aforesaid statement, which is in the form of undertaking, the respondent No.3 is at liberty to apply to the Municipal Council so as to open the seal which was placed on the premises. If any application is made by the respondent No.3, the respondent No.1 Council may take appropriate decision in accordance with law without any delay. Since it was alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the injunction order 4 WP 4895 of 2009 of this Court, the respondent No.3 was continuing with the commercial use of the premises, the respondent No.1 Council was obliged to seal the premises. 6. So far as the directions to the State Government in our earlier orders regarding monitoring affairs of various municipalities are concerned, the State Government may proceed on that basis, so that the problem poised in the above petition regarding unauthorized construction and use of commercial premises at hill stations, may not be repeated or may be prevented so far as other hill stations are concerned. We however, clarify that our directions regarding supersession of the respondent No.1 Council were issued in view of the fact that no steps were taken by the respondent No.1 pursuant to our directions. Now since the respondent No.1 has rectified its error, it is not necessary to go into the said aspect and it is left to the discretion and wisdom of the State Government. It is clarified that our order should not be construed as an expression of opinion in any manner and this aspect should be decided in accordance with law. 8. Initially we had expressed our sense of displeasure in view of the conduct of the respondent No.1 in not following our orders, as a consequence, we had issued contempt notice for non-compliance of the order of this Court. But in view of the stand taken by the respondent No.1 5 WP 4895 of 2009 and in view of the oral undertaking by the respondent No.3 and in view of the fact that now this Court has been assured by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.1 Council that in future appropriate care will be taken by the Municipal Council in this behalf, we accept the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent No.1 as well as by respondent No.3 and accordingly discharge the notice of contempt. 9. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, civil application No.1953 of 2010 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )