{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2041 OF 2009 Balasaheb Manikrao Deshmukh & others PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.P.S.Dighe, Advocate for petitioners Mr.V.B.Ghatge, AGP for respondent No.1 Mr.M.V.Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 22nd September 2009 PER COURT: 1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges notification dated 12.12.2008 published in the newspaper on 10.01.2009 for inclusion of villages Taroda (Bk) and Taroda (Kh), within the limits of Nanded-Waghala Municipal Corporation. 2. Upon perusal of the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2, it is clear that earlier, the villagers had passed a {2} resolution for inclusion of these two villages within the limits of Nanded-Waghala Municipal Corporation. Accordingly, a notification came to be issued. The petitioners basically apprehend that the taxes, collected from the residents of these villages, would not be utilized for the development of the said villages. Possibly, on this ground, inclusion of the said villages was opposed by passing of a resolution. It also appears that a writ petition had been filed in this Court i.e. writ petition No.4739/1997. The Division Bench of this Court had allowed the writ petition directing the State and Municipal Council to explain as to why these villages have not been included despite there being demand of the villagers. Similar orders also came to be passed in Writ Petition No.1619/1997 by order dated 18.11.1998. 3. The petitioners cannot be allowed to contend and breath hot and cold at their whims. Earlier, resolution had been passed seeking inclusion of these two villages and by this petition the notification has been challenged by which the request of the petitioners / villagers, made earlier stands fructified. In any event, there is nothing on record to indicate that the respondent Corporation would not utilize the taxes which are or would be collected, for the development of the said villages. If this does happen, the petitioners have adequate remedies available in law. The respondents in the affidavit in reply at para 9 have disclosed the budget of the Corporation and also the development which has been carried out in these villages. {3} 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, according to us, no case for interference, in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is made out. In the light of that, therefore, this petition, which is sans merits, is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp2041-09