(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2303 OF 1999 1. Rajesh s/o. Shantilal Samdariya, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. College Road, Jalna. 2. Ramnarayan s/o. Badrinarayan Rathi, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Retired and Agriculture, R/o. College Road, Jalna. 3. Smt. Laxmibai w/o. Dattatraya Lingade, Age : 37 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Sheetal Vihar, SRPF Road, Jalna. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Collector, Collectorate Office, Jalna. 3. The Municipal Council, Jalna, Through its Chief Officer. 4. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Jalna. (2) 5. The Sanitary Inspector, Sadar Bazar No.3, Municipal Council, Jalna. 6. The Superintendent of Police, S.P. Office, Jalna. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. V.D. Rakh, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1, 2 and 6. Mr. H.K. Munde, Advocate, for respondent nos.3, 4 and 5. ........................ W I T H WRIT PETITION NO. 2359 OF 1999 1. Dr. Hitesh s/o. Kishorbhai Raithatha, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Medical Practitioner, R/o. Modikhana, Jalna. 2. Sow. Dr. Ila w/o. Hitesh Raithatha, Age : 29 years, Occupation : Medical Practitioner, R/o. as above. .. Petitioners. (3) versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Collector, Collectorate Office, Jalna. 3. The Municipal Council, Jalna, Through its Chief Officer. 4. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Jalna. 5. The Sanitary Inspector, Sadar Bazar No.3, Municipal Council, Jalna. 6. The Superintendent of Police, S.P. Office, Jalna. .. Respondents. ......................... Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. V.D. Rakh, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1, 2 and 6. Mr. H.K. Munde, Advocate, for respondent nos.3, 4 and 5. *************** (4) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 11TH AUGUST 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) : 1. The petitioners, in both the Writ Petitions, were granted construction permission. Subsequently, the Collector, Jalna, directed the respondent / Municipal Council to suspend the construction permission. The Municipal Council, pursuant to the orders of the Collector, suspended the construction permission. 2. The Collector had passed the order, directing the respondent / Municipal Council to suspend the construction permission of the petitioners, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, in Writ Petition No. 5096/1998. 3. The Writ Petition No. 5096/1998 has been dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 1-4-2004. The very basis, pursuant to which the orders were passed by the Collector, is itself not in existence. (5) 4. In view of the above, the Writ Petitions are allowed and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "b" in both petitions. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2303etc