:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4972 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.4972 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.4972 OF 2006 Dr.Dhanpal Shripal Mankapure .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.T.S.Ingale i/b. Ms.Archana Kalolgi for the Petitioner. Mr.P.P.Kakade, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.M.V.Walawalkar, Senior Advocate with Sudhir Prabhu. ----- CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.M.KANADE, JJ. V.M.KANADE, JJ. V.M.KANADE, JJ. DATE : 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2006. DATE : 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2006. DATE : 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent taken up for hearing. 2. The short issue involved in the above is that Respondent No.3 Municipal Corporation had already submitted a proposal dated 20th November, 2003 to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to modify the development plan of Miraj City in respect of deleting the reservation of site Nos.116 and 117, under section 37 read with section 50 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to decide the said proposal for modification, as :2: expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall give an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner, before passing any order. (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (V.M.KANADE,J.) (V.M.KANADE,J.) (V.M.KANADE,J.)