1 W.P.549/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 549 OF 2010 Vishwanath Dattatraya Borkar ).. Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others ).. Respondents Mr. R.D. Bindra for the Petitioner. Ms. S.M. Dandekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mrs. Geeta Jogalekar for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Mr. S.B. Pawar i/b S.K. Legal Associates for Respondent No.5. Mr. Vibhav Krishna a/w Mr. Vishal Nahar, Mr.Tejas Shah, Ms.Laxmi Mordekar i/b Juris Consillis for Respondent No.6. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 6TH JULY 2010 P.C. What is challenged in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 10th February 2010 (Exhibit “M”) passed by the Executive Engineer, (Bldg. Proposal) Eastern Suburbs-II in the office of the Deputy Chief Engineer of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation. 2. The very petitioner had also filed Writ Petition No.1202 of 2008 making a grievance against the order dated 4th February 2008 of the 2 W.P.549/10 Executive Engineer (Bldg. Proposal) Eastern Suburbs of the Respondent- Municipal Corporation. The order was set aside only on the ground that although the Writ Petition was heard, it was not a speaking order. The learned Single Judge accordingly set aside the order with liberty to the Executive Engineer to pass a fresh order. 3. The order pertains to sanctioning the proposal made by the respondent No.6 Developer for constructing buildings on the lands in question where the petitioner himself had an accommodation. The petitioner is to be offered alternative accommodation in the buildings proposed to the constructed. The petitioner’s apprehension is that there are certain illegalities in the sanctioned plans and that on account of such illegalities even if he is given permanent alternative accommodation, the petitioner may be running the risk of such permanent alternative accommodation being demolished in future. 4. To enable the petitioner to raise all such grievance before the Executive Engineer and as is indicated in the impugned order dated 10th February 2010, a hearing was arranged in the chamber of the Executive Engineer on 27th January 2010. At the said hearing, the petitioner along with his Advocate was present and so also the members of the society and their Advocate as well as the representative of the Developer were present. As the detailed speaking order indicates, the petitioner had raised as many as seven objections. Each objection has been dealt with by the Executive Engineer and 3 W.P.549/10 for the reasons given in the order the objection is rejected. For instance, one of the objections raised by the petitioner was that there was no clearance from the Coastal Regulation Zone authority for the project under reference, even though the same is affected by CRZ and hence the proposal should be revoked forthwith. The Executive Engineer has dealt with the said objection in the following terms :- “In reply to this, E.E. (B.P.) E.S.-II informed them and also showed them the remarks/plans from the Development Plan dept., wherein the CRZ demarcation is clearly marked. The building under reference for which IOD/CC are granted is to be constructed in place of building No.30 & 31 which are well beyond this line and hence the question of the building being affected by CRZ does not arise. However, it may be stated that some buildings for which reconstruction permission is not granted yet are either partly or fully affected by the CRZ line. The approval to these buildings will only be granted after obtaining the necessary clearances from the M.C.Z.M. Authority.” 4. The learned counsel for respondent No.8 states that the petitioner is going to be offered permanent alternative accommodation to be constructed on the lands with buildings No.30/31 and, therefore, there is no substance in the petitioner’s apprehension that the permanent alternative accommodation to be offered to the petitioner will be in CRZ zone. 5. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 society which is having 300 members opposes the petition and submits that only because of the objections raised by the petitioner who is the sole individual, the entire 4 W.P.549/10 project is being delayed and that other members of the respondent No.5 society have not only no objection against the implementation of the project but they are all eagerly waiting for the implementation of the project. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the Executive Engineer has passed detailed speaking order and in exercise of the extra ordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we are not supposed to sit in appeal over the decision of the Executive Engineer. We, therefore, find no merits in this Writ Petition. Writ Petition dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.