(1) WP7888-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7888 OF 2009 M/s A.C. Kothari Constructions, Jalna, through General Power of Attorney Holder Shri Abhaykumar Kachrulal. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. A.B. Kale, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 9th JUNE, 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. The petition has been filed by a Developer who has constructed a building of a Shopping Complex at a place allotted by the Municipal Council. By this petition, the petitioner seeks an order to set aside the communication dated 31st January, 2009, issued by the Deputy Secretary, State of Maharashtra, by which the State has directed that a tripartite agreement for fifty years cannot be entered into between the petitioner, the Municipal Council and the tenement-holders. The State has relied on the provisions of Section 92 of the Maharashtra Municipal (2) WP7888-09 Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short, "the Act"). According to the petitioner, although the building has already been constructed, it would suffer untold damages because of the impugned order. The petitioner contends that it was allowed to construct this building having been a successful bidder when the tenders were floated. It is pointed out that the work contract was entered into between the petitioner and the Municipal Council on the basis of "Build, Operate and Transfer". It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that since the Government has directed the Municipal Council not to enter into any such tripartite agreement for fifty years, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. 2. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that Section 92 of the Act is not applicable and in fact, what is applicable is Section 272 of the Act. He submits that in view of the decision in case of "G.B. Mahajan and others vs. the Jalgaon Municipal Council and others" reported in AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1153, the Municipal Council need not have referred the matter to the State Government at all. (3) WP7888-09 According to him, the aforesaid judgement provides that a tripartite agreement could be entered into by the parties i.e. the Developer, the Municipal Council and the tenement-holders. It is further submitted that the provisions of Section 92 of the Act have no application in the present case and, therefore, the tripartite agreement need not be confined only to the period prescribed under that section. It is urged that the impugned order should be set aside as it is illegal. 3. In our opinion, the present petition is not maintainable. In effect, the petitioner is seeking implementation of the conditions in the Tender Notice and the work Contract entered into by it with the Municipal Council for erecting the building for Shopping Complex on "Build, Operate and Transfer" basis. Such reliefs can be efficaciously sought in a Civil Court. The Petition is dismissed, relegating the petitioner to avail of alternate remedies. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] NPJ/wp7888-09