(1) WP282-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 282 OF 2011 Sayed Mahmood Sayed Hussain Bilgrami and others PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, advocate for respondent No. 2. ..... CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 18th APRIL, 2011 ORAL ORDER (PER - M.T. JOSHI, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction as under : (B) By way of appropriate order or (2) WP282-11 direction, the impugned letter dated 16-12-2010 issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer (NOC Cell), CIDCO, Aurangabad, refusing to issue NOC for building permission on Plot No. 9, N-6-M, CIDCO, Aurangabad till adjudication of Writ Petition No. 2338/1999, may kindly be quashed and set aside." 3. Plot No. 9, situated in N-6-M, CIDCO, Aurangabad was leased to the petitioners and their mother, vide lease-deed dated 02-01-1986. Thereafter, in pursuance of the approved plan from respondent No. 2, the City and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (CIDCO), they had partly built a construction and part occupancy certificate was granted to them by respondent No. 2 vide occupancy certificate dated 09-04-1990. The rest of the construction remained to be made. The petitioners stated that since the mother of the petitioners had died, after seeking Letter of Administration, they had applied to respondent No. 2 for transfer of plot on 15-12-2010. Thereafter, the building permission was sought. However, respondent No. 2 communicated (3) WP282-11 to them that in view of the order passed in writ petition No. 2338/1999, since the petitioner has not completed the development work within the extended time by the High Court, the permission cannot be granted. 4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were not parties to the said writ petition. Further, due to the death of petitioners' mother, they were unable to carry the construction since the plot was required to be transferred in the name of the legal representatives by seeking Letter of Administration from the civil Court. The petitioners have placed before us the copies of the judgement passed in writ petition Nos. 1556/2009, 6175/2009, 5379/2006 and in the group of writ petitions bearing writ petition No. 11466/2010 and others wherein similar prayers were granted by this Court. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we issue the following directions. (i) The petitioners to file fresh application to (4) WP282-11 the respondent No. 2 - CIDCO for getting No Objection Certificate for construction according to law, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. (ii) The respondent No. 2 shall pass appropriate final order on the said application within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the said application and shall communicate the order to the petitioners within a period of two weeks therefrom. 6. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [D.B. BHOSALE, J.] NPJ/wp282-11