1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3105 OF 2008 Chandni Market ..Petitioner. Vs. Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department and others ..Respondents. ..... Ms. Rajni Iyer, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.S. Chandnani for the Petitioner. Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for Respondents 1, 2 and 4. Mr. Vijay D. Patil for Respondent No.3. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 2nd May, 2008. P.C. : 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the Respondents waive service. By consent of the learned counsel, taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Petition under Article 226 has been filed in order to challenge an order passed on 25th June, 2007 by the designated authority for regularization of the structure which forms the subject matter of the dispute. The structure is alleged to have been constructed in 1995 in barrack No.464 , Sheet No.63 of Ulhasnagar 2 and consists of a ground floor and three floors. The building is also stated to have 8 shops and 12 storerooms. In 2006 an ordinance was promulgated for regularization of unauthorized developments in the city of Ulhasnagar which was followed by a legislative enactment. The provisions of the Act, inter alia Sections 3 and 4, provide for the nature of construction which can be regularized and those which cannot be tolerated. The unit purchasers in the present case received notices in pursuance of which it has been stated that an application was made for regularization. The designated authority rejected the proposal on 25th June, 2007. That order was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Chief Secretary. Now a perusal of the order of the designated authority would show that there is absolutely no elaboration therein of the nature of the unauthorized development or the reasons which prompted the designated authority to refuse regularization. That cannot be cured by the appellate authority having furnished certain reasons because it is primarily for the designated authority to apply its mind and to determine whether regularization can or cannot be effected in terms of the statute. In these circumstances, there is merit in the grievance urged on behalf of the Petitioner that an order of remand would be warranted 3 so as to enable the designated authority to pass a fresh and reasoned order. In order to facilitate this, the impugned orders dated 25th June. 2007 passed by the designated authority and the order dated 29th February, 2008 of the Additional Chief Secretary in appeal are quashed and set aside without the expression of any conclusive opinion on the merits of this case. It would be open to the Petitioners if they so desire to submit a fresh proposal within a period of four weeks from today. The designated authority shall consider the fresh proposal and, if no proposal is submitted, the existing proposal in accordance with law and pass fresh orders thereon after hearing the parties. The Petition shall stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. *****