(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1369 OF 1994 Babulal s/o. Kachrusing Gothwal, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Legal Practitioner, R/o. Gandhi Nagar, Station Road, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Bombay - 32. 2. City & Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Aurangabad, through its Chief Administrator. 3. The Managing Director, City & Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., 2nd Floor, Nariman Building, Nariman Point, Bombay - 21. 4. The Administrator, City & Industrial Development Corporation, New Town, Aurangabad. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. S.A. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.D. Rakh, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 to 4. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 28TH JUNE 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The challenge involved in the present petition is already considered by a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 6th September 2002, in Writ Petition No. 4016 of 1991. 2. In that view of the matter, the present petition is dismissed for the reasons recorded while dismissing Writ Petition No. 4016 of 1991. 3. However, we find, that while issuing rule, on 29th June 1994, this Court had granted interim relief in terms of prayer clauses "G" and "H", on condition that the petitioner (3) deposits Rs. 18,000/- with respondent no.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner makes a categorical statement, that the said amount of Rs. 18,000/- has already been deposited by the petitioner with the respondent no.2. 4. In that view of the matter, we direct the respondent no.2 to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of commencement certificate / building permission, in accordance with law, and while considering such an application, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 18,000/- shall be adjusted against the dues of the respondent no.2. 5. Subject to the above directions, rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1369