1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6883 OF 2010 Moahan s/o Anandrao Deshmukh, Age 53 years, Occu.Service, R/o Plot No.18, Besides Sai Krupa Lodge, Samarthnagar, Aurangabad, Taluka and District Aurangabad ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad through its Commissioner 3. The City Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Mr.N.L.Jadhav, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.K.Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 Mr.A.M.Karad, Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 30th July 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for quashing and setting aside a communication dated 28.7.2010 by which the permission granted to the petitioner earlier came to be revoked. The petitioner prays for other reliefs, which according to us, are not germane in the light of the order which we propose to pass. 3. It appears, the petitioner was granted permission for demolition of the walls constructed by the respondents in order to effect proper access to the property of the petitioner wherein the construction was going on. The aforesaid permission came to be granted by communication/order dated 30.4.2009. The petitioner had undertaken to reconstruct the wall for which permission was sought for demolition and accordingly, had submitted a Bank guarantee. Undisputedly, the period of 1 and ½ years is yet to come to an end. Meanwhile, during the pendency of the so-called period of 1 and ½ years, the respondents served the petitioner with a communication dated 28.7.2010 by which the petitioner was informed that the permission which was granted earlier stood rescinded/revoked. Obviously, before this order came to be issued, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Apart from that the period of 1 and ½ years for which the permission was granted is yet to expire. 3 4. According to us, since the period of 1 and ½ years is yet to expire, the respondents could not have issued such a notice dated 28.7.2010 revoking or rescinding the permission granted earlier. In that light of the matter, therefore, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 28.7.2010. It is needless to state that the respondents would be at liberty to take such action as is available to them in law after the period of 1 and ½ years come to an end. Rule made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/6883.10wp)