1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5116/2007 (Mrs. Uma Rakeshkumar Ahuja & others VERSUS The State of Mah. & others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Jagdale, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Thakre, Assistant Government Pleader for R-1. Mr. Dhatrak, counsel for R-2. CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 25, 2008. Heard. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner is in respect of some construction made by respondent nos.3 and 4 in the locality which is a residential zone and which is not consistent with the building permit and the same is also inconsistent with the sanction granted for construction by the Corporation. The counsel for the petitioner contended that after the construction is over, the same shall be used by the respondent nos.3 and 4 for the purpose of housing the hospital therein which is again impermissible as per the Municipal Council Rules and Bye-Laws. The counsel for the respondent no.2, Municipal Council, Chandrapur has submitted that respondent no.2 has filed an affidavit and in paragraph 6 of the same, it is specifically mentioned 2 that the Chief Officer, after verification of the case of the respondent nos.3 and 4, noticed that some construction undertaken by the respondent nos.3 and 4 was not consistent with the building permit granted by the Municipal Council, and therefore, issued notices to respondent nos.3 and 4 to remove the same. It is, therefore, contended that the care will be taken not to permit any activity which is inconsistent with building permit and bye-laws and shall not be permitted to be used for the purpose other than permissible in building bye-laws. In view of the categorical statement made by the counsel for respondent no.2 as well as recitals in paragraph 6 of the affidavit dated 17.01.2008 filed by respondent no.2, the cause of action in the present petition comes to an end. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE APTE