1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.500 OF 2010 Chetan Kumar Gajanan Ratnaparkhi & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of Mahrashtra & Ors. . ...Respondents ...... Mr.S.C.Mangle i/b Mr.Harshad Bhadbhade for Petitioners. Mrs.Neha Bhide, A.G.P. for Respondents 1 & 2. Mr.V.C.Ghosalkar for Respondent No.3. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED:- APRIL 21, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mrs.Bhide, A.G.P. waives notice for Respondents 1 and 2. Mr.Ghosalkar waives notice for Respondent No.3. 3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 2 4. This Petition takes exception to the order dated 16th June 2009 passed by the Respondent No.3-First Appellate Authority in Appeal No.6 of 2008. The latter part of operative order is the subject matter of challenge before us which directs the Municipal Council to lodge FIR against the Petitioner for having constructed unauthorised structure under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act within ten days from receipt of authenticated copy of the order. 5. Two-fold grievance is made on behalf of the Petitioners. Firstly, that the Respondent No.3 had no business to issue such directions as only matter in issue before the said Authority was in respect of query under Right to Information Act. Secondly, the direction has been issued without giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners in that behalf. 6. Insofar as the first grievance is concerned, we have no hesitation in accepting the same as proceedings before the Respondent No.3 had emanated from the Application made under the provisions of Right to Information Act. In those proceedings, the Respondent No.3 could not have issued directions to the Municipal Council and usurped authority to do so in that behalf. In any case, it is now unnecessary to elaborate on this aspect 3 any further in view of the stand taken by the Respondent No.3 that the impugned portion of the order dated 16th June 2009 stands recalled, realising the error committed by the Respondent No.3 having exceeded authority while deciding the Appeal. 7. Accordingly, this Petition ought to succeed. 8. Our attention has been invited to Para 2 of the order dated 20th January 2010 passed by this Court while issuing notice to the Respondents. Since Respondent No.3 has remedied the mischief, we see no reason to precipitate the matter any further while making it clear that the Respondent No.3 who has passed the impugned direction should not venture into such terrain in future. 9. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)