WP 3309/11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3309/2011 Pandudrang Mahadeo Harshe V/s City & Industrial Development Corporation, Aurangabad, through Administrator. _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Shri Vinod P. Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Shri A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent. CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE & S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. Date: 03.08.2011 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2] By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks direction to the sole respondent to grant no objection for grant of occupancy / completion certificate in respect of Plot No.58, N-2, Survey No.90/1, Mukundwadi, Aurangabad. It is the WP 3309/11 2 contention of the petitioner that though the petitioner had submitted a plan for construction within a stipulated period, the construction could not be completed within a period of one year. It is, therefore, submitted that though the petitioner applied for the grant of no objection for grant of occupancy / completion certificate, respondent authority is not granting the same. 3] Shri A.S. Bajaj, learned counsel for respondent – CIDCO authority, contends that in view of directions by this Court dated 13.4.2004 in Civil Application No.7360/2002 in Writ Petition No.2338/1999, if a person has not completed construction within a period of one year, the completion / occupancy certificate cannot be granted. 4] It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s case is covered by first list of plot holders. In paragraph 3 of the said order, the Court has directed the CIDCO to issue notice to the plot holders directing them to commence the construction within 3 months and complete WP 3309/11 3 the same within one year and to do the same in accordance with rules framed by CIDCO. The said order also requires the CIDCO to state in the notice that if the plans for approval are not submitted within 4 weeks, CIDCO shall proceed to take over possession of the plots. 5] Undisputedly, the petitioner has submitted the plans within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the notice and also commenced the construction within 3 months. The only question is as to whether respondent – CIDCO can deny completion / occupancy certificate for non completion of construction within one year from the notice. According to the petitioner, he could not complete the construction within one year for the reasons stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. We find that the reasons given by the petitioner for non-completion of construction within the prescribed period of one year are genuine. It can also be seen that said order does not state that the WP 3309/11 4 completion / occupancy certificate should not be granted if construction is not completed within one year. In any case, the respondent – CIDCO has not taken possession of the plot in question. 6] In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the writ petition. The respondent is directed to issue no objection for completion / occupancy certificate in accordance with law within a period of 8 weeks from today. Needless to state that the petitioner would pay and penal / additional premium to the respondent in accordance with the rules. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. (S.B. Deshmukh, J.) (D.B. Bhosale, J.) Dt/- 03.08.2011 ndk/c381119