1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1783 OF 2010 Smt.Pratibha Kamlakar Phad, Age 44 years, Occu.Household, R/o Plot No.226, N-1/B, CIDCO, Aurangabad, at Present Mumbai .. PETITIONER VERSUS The City and Industrial Development Corporation, Udhyog Bhavan, Aurangabad, through its Administrator .. RESPONDENT Shri A.V.Patil, Advocate for petitioner Shri A.S.Bajaj, Advocate for respondent CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 7th April, 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. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 18.9.2009 and also direct the respondent to accede to the request of the petitioner for 2 transfer of Plot No.226 situated at N-1, CIDCO, Aurangabad. 3. The plot which is presently in possession of the petitioner was initially allotted to one M/s Centron Industrial Alliance Ltd. The said plot ultimately came to be transferred in favour of the petitioner by an agreement which was approved by the respondent subject to certain terms and conditions. The petitioner, it appears carried out construction, without obtaining permission and subsequently it appears that the occupancy certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioner on 13.11.2009. In the meantime, husband of the petitioner came to be transferred to Mumbai and accordingly, the petitioner and her family members desire to shift to Mumbai and consequently, want to dispose of the said property. The petitioner accordingly submitted an application to the respondent seeking permission to transfer the said plot, which application came to be rejected by a communication dated 18.9.2009 on the ground that unless prior permission of this Court was obtained, the respondent was unable to consider the request of the petitioner. 4. In the light of what has been stated by the petitioner in the petition and in the light of similar orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court directing the respondent to consider the application for transfer on its merits, we allow this petition, quash 3 and set aside the impugned communication and direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner and decide the same on its own merits, in accordance with law. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/1783.10wp)