- 1 - wp- 5122/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5122 OF 2011 M/s. Shreenath Construction. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Ram U. Singh for the petitioner. Mr. V. S. Gokhale, AGP. Coram : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & RANJIT MORE, JJ. Date : August 4, 2011. P. C. : 1. The petitioner has made a prayer that respondent no.2, i.e., the Collector, Thane, be directed to consider the petitioner’s application dated 7/4/2011 for N.A. permission in respect of suit property, i.e., land bearing Old Survey No. 245, New Survey No. 36, Hissa No.1, admeasuring 780 sq. meters and Old Survey No.245, New Survey No. 36, Hissa No. 2B, admeasuring 1160 sq. meters both situate, lying and being at village Navghar, Bhayndar (East), Taluka and District Thane, in the registration district and sub-district Thane and now within the limits of Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation by following the procedure as laid down under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Reveue Code, 1966. srp - 2 - wp- 5122/11 2. Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the Collector, Thane, i.e., the 2nd respondent, vide his letter dated 9th April 2011 has intimated to the petitioner that his application cannot be considered in view of the fact that this Court has on 14/10/2008 in Writ Petition No. 6986, 6994 and 7012 of 2008 passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo. It is further stated in the said letter that the land in question is included in Schedule-A, village Goddev, of his office order dated 5/9/2008 which was subject matter of the said petitions. 3. Counsel also drew our attention to the order dated 22/12/2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court presided over by the Hon’ble Chief Justice Shril Mohit Shah in Writ Petition No.9055 of 2010. Counsel pointed out that in that order in similar fact situation, the Division Bench gave direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the application of the petitioners therein for grant of N.A. permission despite the order of status quo mentioned hereinabove. Learned counsel further pointed out that in any case those 13 writ petitions, to which reference is made by the 2nd respondent in his letter dated 9th April 2011, have now been disposed by this Court [Coram : S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.] on 14th July 2011. Hence, the - 3 - wp- 5122/11 status quo order in any case does not survive. He submited that in the circumstances, direction be given to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s application for grant of N.A. permission in accordance with law. 4. Mr.Gokhale, learned AGP states that in case the petitioner addresses a fresh representation to the 2nd respondent setting out above-mentioned facts and annexing the relevant orders of this Court, the said application will be considered by the 2nd respondent in accordance with law. This statement is accepted. Counsel for the petitioner states that he will make such an application within two weeks from today. If such an application alongwith relevant orders of this Court is filed, the 2nd respondent shall consider it in accordance with law and communicate the result thereof to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent shall dispose of the said application as expeditiously as possible. 5. The petition is disposed of in aforestated terms. (Ranjit More, J.) (Smt. Ranjana Desai,J.)