skc 1 WP-7864-8100 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7864 OF 2011 Prabhakar Girdhar Mahale & Anr. ..Petitioners versus Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8100 OF 2011 Palm Towers Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Ors. ..Petitioners versus Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Venkatesh Dhond i/b. Ms. Shamim Dastegir N. for Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 7864 of 2011. Mr. Pravin K. Samdani - Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Mehta , Mrs. Trupti Shetty and Ms. Faiza Dhanani i/b. M/s. Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 8100 of 2011 and for Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No. 7864 of 2011. Mr. Sandeep V. Marne for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in Writ Petition No. 7864 of 2011 and for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in Writ Petition No. 8100 of 2011. Ms. Rajani Iyer - Sr. Advocate i/b. Mr. V. K. Aggarwal for Respondent Nos. 7 to 36 in Writ Petition No. 8100 of 2011. Mrs. M. P.Thakur - Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.37 in Writ Petition No. 8100 of 2011. skc 2 WP-7864-8100 CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND R. G. KETKAR, JJ. 03 October 2011 P.C. : Heard the learned counsel for the parties in both the petitions. 2. Mr. V. K. Aggarwal, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 7 to 36 in writ petition no. 8100 of 2011 undertakes to file vakalatnama on behalf of those respondents within a period of one week from today. Permission to file vakalatnama within a period of one week is granted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in writ petition no. 8100 of 2011 prayed for leave to implead the State of Maharashtra through the Urban Development Department. Request not objected by the other side, granted. Appropriate amendment in cause title be carried out forthwith. 4. Writ Petition No. 8100 of 2011 is directed against the impugned order dated 29th August 2011 passed by the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners have already filed an appeal against the impugned order under Section 47 of the MRTP Act before the State Government which is pending for decision. It is submitted that if this Court is not inclined at this stage to entertain the writ petition on merits in that an event direction be given to the State skc 3 WP-7864-8100 Government to decide the appeal filed by the petitioners on its own merits, in accordance with law within a stipulated period. Learned counsel for the petitioners further prayed that till the appeal is decided the parties to both these petitions be directed to maintain status quo as on today and nobody shall be entitled to occupy any portion of the subject premises till the decision is taken by the State Government. 5. Mr. Dhond, the learned counsel for the petitioners in writ petition no. 7864 of 2011 has also agreed that the parties shall maintain status quo and till the order is passed by the State Government, nobody shall occupy any portion of the subject premises. 6. Ms. Rajani Iyer, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 7 to 36 in writ petition no. 8100 of 2011 also agreed for this arrangement till the appeal is decided by the State Government. 7. Learned counsel for the Corporation has stated that till the appeal is decided by the State Government, no action will be taken till then. 8. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is evident that the petitioners in writ petition no. 8100 of 2011 have filed a statutory appeal under Section 47 of the MRTP Act before the State Government, which is skc 4 WP-7864-8100 pending for decision. Hence we direct the State Government to decide the appeal filed by the petitioners on its own merits, in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order after following principles of natural justice including grant of reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in writ petition no. 7864 of 2011. Parties in both the petitions are directed to maintain status quo as on today in the meantime and shall not occupy any portion of the subject premises till the appeal is decided by the State Government. With these directions and observations writ petition are disposed of. 9. At this stage, respective counsels have requested this Court that if the order passed by the State Government is adverse to the either petitioners or respondents, that may not be given effect to for a period of two weeks from the date of the said order. In the interest of justice, we direct the State Government not to give effect to the order which is passed by the State Government as per our directions for a period of two weeks from the date of such order. Questions and contentions raised in these petitions are kept open. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (R. G. KETKAR, J.)