{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4233 OF 2009 Smt.Indu Shashwat Mishra R/o Plot No.99, N-1, CIDCO, New Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS The City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., Udyog Bhavan, Aurangabad Through its Administrator RESPONDENT ....... Mr.Sham Karkare, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Ram Shinde h/f Mr.A.S.Bajaj Advocate for respondent ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 17th August 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution {2} of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing the respondent CIDCO to issue “No Objection Certificate” for occupancy certificate in respect of plot No.99, N-1/A CIDCO, Aurangabad. 3. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this petition may briefly be stated thus- The petitioner claims to be the owner an in possession of Plot No.99, N-1, CIDCO, Aurangabad, admeasuring 288.40 square meters. The petitioner had executed an agreement to lease on 01.11.1973 with respondent CIDCO. It appears that the said plot had been initially alloted to one Mrs.Sethi and thereafter was transfered by way of a tripartite agreement to Smt.Goyal and thereafter the plot came to be transfered to the petitioner as per deed of assignment. On 11.05.1987, the occupancy certificate was issued by respondent CIDCO for the construction and the petitioner started construction accordingly. The petitioner, however, on account of financial constraints could not complete the construction and the respondent CIDCO on 20.12.2004 had issued building permission to the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, completed the entire construction. It appears that the financial companies have insisted upon the petitioner to submit the occupancy certificate and, therefore, the petitioner approached the office of respondent CIDCO for issuance of occupancy certificate. The petitioner was informed by the respondent CIDCO that as the {3} petitioner had not submitted the proposal for issuance of No Objection Certificate for occupancy certificate within a stipulated period, the petitioner was required to get necessary orders from this Court in the light of the directions issued in Writ Petition No. 2338/1999. 4. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondent, the respondent has filed its affidavit in reply. In para 2 of the affidavit in reply, it is stated that in the event the delay in filing application is condoned by this Court, the respondent would consider the request of the petitioner for issuance of No Objection Certificate, as per rule. In para 1 of the affidavit in reply it is stated that this Court, by orders dated 22.10.2003 and 13.04.2003, had directed the respondents to submit list of vacant plots and / or over which only one room or construction of like nature had been constructed by the allottees. The list was accordingly submitted and this Court directed issuance of notices to all such allottees by calling upon them to apply for permission within 3 months and complete the construction within one year and on non compliance of the same, the allotment would stand canceled. 5. It is true that the petitioner has not completed the construction within the period specified by this Court in its orders dated 22.10.2003 and 13.04.2003. However, it appears that after obtaining the building permission, the petitioner has completed the entire construction. Since the petitioner has invested huge amount {4} in the construction and has probably obtained financial assistance from financial institutions, according to us, the delay caused in completion of the construction and submission of the proposal for issuance of No Objection Certificate for occupancy certificate needs to be condoned. 6. We accordingly condone the lapse on the part of the petitioner and condone the delay in submission of the said proposal. We direct the respondent CIDCO to decide the said proposal of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of 4 weeks from today and communicate decision thereon to the petitioner. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp4233-09