1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2013 OF 2010 Shivaji Jagannath Wadekar, Maharashtra Shaasan Dughda Tantranya Sanghatana .... Petitioner vs District Collector, Solapur & ors. .... Respondents Mr. M. S. Topkar for the petitioner. Ms. M. S. Bane, “B” Panel Counsel for respondent. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 19th March, 2010 P.C.: 1 The petitioner has filed the present Petition and thereby challenge is made to the Order dated 22.02.2010 passed by the Industrial Court, pending the complaint/application under Section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The exparte order as obtained was subsequently vacated by the impugned order by observing as under: “23 In para 11 of the additional reply (Ex. C­18) filed by Respondent no.1 and 2 it is stated that the part marked as A, B, C and D in the plan is going to remain as it is. No changes whatsoever would be done therein while constructing Revenue Bhavan. Same statement is made in Affidavit (Ex. C­19) filed on behalf of Respondent no. 1 and 2. Hence it is clear that the buildings 2 mentioned in part marked as A, B. C and D in the plan will remain untouched. It is noticed after perusing the plan that in this part is the main water filter unit tank and Godown no.1. Hence it does not seem to be correct contention of the complainant that the demolition of buildings in remaining part would result in total closure of Milk Dairy. At the most the residential quarters in these areas are likely to be demolished. But it does not seem that this would result in alternation of service conditions of Dairy employees. The workers and their families residing there can stay elsewhere. They can get other government staff quarters elsewhere as per availability. In case they don’t get, they may receive house rent allowance as per rules. After considering all these factors I don’t find any merit in the contentions of the complainant. Hence, the complainant has not made out prima facie case. The balance of convenience is also not proved to be in its favour. Since there in not going to be alternation in their service conditions the complainant is not going to suffer irreparable loss. Considering the above I have come to the conclusion that it is not proper to grant complainant’s application.” 3 There is no reason to interfere with the same as the order itself provides that there is no alteration of service conditions of Dairy employee if they vacate the said premises. It is also made clear that they are entitled for Government quarters as per the availability and in case they don’t get, they will be entitled to 3 receive house rent allowance as per the rules. Considering this and also for the reason that the project of the Government cannot be halted only for this reason as the Government has acquired and took possession of the 6 acres of land for further development, but because of this interim order, they are not in a position to proceed with the same. This, in my view, is also an additional factor which goes against the petitioner. The balance of convenience, equity are also in favour of the respondent/Government to proceed with the project in a stipulated period specifically when there is no dispute with regard to the title and ownership of the property as the same belongs to the Government. Out of 11 acres, 6 acres of land is required for the revenue Department. The remaining land and property shall continue to belong to the Dairy Department. Therefore, there is a clear finding and there is nothing to show that that will affect the dairy business and/or they will close down the dairy business. Therefore, considering the whole reasoning given, the impugned order need no interference. 4 The Petition is accordingly dismissed. The order passed by this Court dated 12.03.2010 also stands vacated. 5 No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)