1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 59 OF 2009 Shabir Ahmed Mohd. Saheb Shaikh ...Petitioner Versus The Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad, Paithan and others ...Respondents ..... None for the petitioner Mr. advocate for respondent No. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 27TH AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 None appears for the petitioner. 2 This petition is filed challenging the order passed by respondent No.3 dated 18.1.2008 in file No. 2007/NPP/appeal/569 by the Collector, Aurangabad and subsequently order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad on 4.11.2008. There is also prayer that the resolution passed by the general body meeting dated 27.6.2007 shall be declared as null and void. 2 3 When this matter was called out in the morning session twice, none appeared for the petitioner. Therefore, the matter was kept specifically at 2.30 p.m. Even now none appears for the petitioner. 4 On careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, it appears that by subsequent resolution, the Municipal Council has selected plot for construction of administrative building of the Municipal Council, which is located in central place of the city. The said resolutions passed by Municipal Council is taking into consideration the convenience of the civilians residing within the area of Municipal Council. It is further observed that the second resolution passed by the respondent Municipal Council, is passed keeping in mind the convenience and to have historical importance of the city. The Divisional Commissioner has approved the findings of the Collector, Aurangabad. It is further observed by the Divisional Commissioner that according to the experts opinion earlier plot No. 16 which was reserved for construction of administrative building comes under flood affected area and therefore, plot No.25 has been selected. Therefore, The Divisional Commissioner after hearing the respective parties and after perusal of the record made available before him has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. 5 The findings recorded by the District Collector are confirmed by 3 the Divisional Commissioner. The petition does not disclose that the findings recorded by the authorities, that too the concurrent findings, are perverse, therefore, in my considered view, no interference is called for in writ jurisdiction. Apart from above, learned counsel for the respondent Municipal Council informs that already construction on the suit plot is substantially progressed. 6 For all these reasons, the writ petition is devoid of any merits and the same is dismissed. (S.S. SHINDE, J). rlj/