AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2564 OF 2005 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2293 OF 2007 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2294 OF 2007 Smt. Shibibai @ Shivabai Okana Mothi & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. P.C. Kansara for the petitioners. Mr. S.P. Kanuga i/b Mr. J.S. Chandani for respondents 3 to 6. Mr. Vijay Patil for respondent 7. Mr. P.P. Kakade, A.G.P. for the State. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 31, 2008. P.C.:- 1. Heard Mr. Kansara, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kanuga, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6, Mr. Patil learned counsel for respondent 7-Corporation and Mr. Kakade, learned AJN 2 A.G.P. for the State. 2. In our opinion, the instant petition involves disputed questions of fact which we are unable to decide in our writ jurisdiction. By prayer clause 11(a) of the petition, the petitioners are seeking a mandatory order which we are unable to pass in our writ jurisdiction in the facts of this case. We are informed that the regularization application preferred by respondents 3 to 6 is pending before the Designated Authority under the Regularization of Unauthorized Developments in the City of Ulhasnagar Act, 2006 (for short, “the said Act”). Considering the nature of the disputes involved, we direct the Designated Authority under the said Act to dispose of the application made by respondents 3 to 6 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order by him. Needless to say that the said application be disposed of by a speaking order. 3. We deem it appropriate, at this stage, to refer to the affidavit of Uttam S. Lanare, Deputy Commissioner of Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation. Paragraph 3 thereof states that the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation has carried out the demolition of unauthorized construction made by respondents 3 to 6 on three AJN 3 occasions. Mr. Patil learned counsel for respondent 7-Corporation states that in view of the said Act all actions initiated by the Corporation for removal of unauthorized constructions carried out till the year 2005 have been suspended and, therefore, respondent 7-Corporation is unable to take any steps to redress the petitioners' grievance. We may record that Mr. Kanuga is disputing that any construction carried out by respondents 3 to 6 has ever been demolished by respondent 7-Corporation. We do not wish to express any opinion on this. 4. Mr. Kansara disputes that respondent 7-Corporation is unable to take any steps to demolish the alleged illegal construction of the wall made by respondents 3 to 6. In the circumstances, in case, the petitioners make any application to respondent 7-Corporation, respondent 7-Corporation may consider it in accordance with law and pass appropriate order, after hearing respondents 3 to 6. The petition is disposed of. 5. The connected civil applications are also disposed of. AJN 4 [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.]