1 WP 1108.2011 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1108 OF 2011 1. Gaurabai Babulal Jatwe Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Business, R/o : Mukundwadi, Aurangabad. 2. Anusayabai W/o Anil Tatware Age : 32 Yrs., Occ. Business, R/o : Mukundwadi, Aurangabad. .... PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary Urban Development Department Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad through its Commissioner. 3. The Assistant Director Town Planning, Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. 4. The City and Industrial Development Corporation, Aurangabad Through its Administrator. 5. The Collector, Aurangabad. .... RESPONDENTS 2 WP 1108.2011 - ( J ) Mr. R.R.Mantri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.K.Kadam, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. A.M.Karad, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 2 & 3. Mr. A.S.Bajaj, Advocate for Respondent No. 4. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 14/02/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER - NARESH H. PATIL, J. ] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioners challenge communication made by the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad dated 29/1/2011. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this petition is fall out of order passed in Writ Petition No. 4869 of 2010, which has been disposed of by Division Bench [ Coram : B.R. Gavai and A.A. Sayed, JJ ] on 5/10/2010. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that consequent to the order passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 898 of 2011 in Writ 3 WP 1108.2011 - ( J ) Petition 4869 of 2010, the impugned order was passed. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is unreasoned one. It does not disclose as to on what grounds/criteria the petitioners’ application for seeking completion certificate was rejected. 5. Learned counsel for Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad produced original file before us. The Officer of Corporation is present in the Court to instruct the counsel. Learned counsel for Corporation submits that initial permission was granted to the petitioners to construct on the ground floor, whereas the petitioners have constructed on ground floor plus first floor, which is excess construction than what is permitted. 6. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for CIDCO submits that CIDCO has leased out shop let plots to the persons, who are adjoining plot holders. Learned counsel submits that it was for Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad to grant permission for construction. 7. We find that technical issues are raised in this petition regarding construction to be carried out on ground floor or first floor. The contentions raised by the petitioners in this regard are disputed by Municipal Corporation. The petitioners are said to be already running their licence FL-III Permit room just adjoining the present construction. Mr. 4 WP 1108.2011 - ( J ) Bajaj, learned counsel submits that road is to be constructed through the area where the petitioners at present run their FL-III Permit room. Considering all these aspects of the matter and looking to the urgency, we find it appropriate to remand the matter back to the authorities of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad for a fresh decision. 8. The petitioners were to vacate the premises, wherein the petitioners are at present running their permit room, by virtue of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court [ Coram : B.R. Gavai and A.A. Sayed, JJ ] dated 5/10/2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in light of the order passed today, the petitioners’ period for compliance of undertaking be extended. We extend the period of compliance for petitioners’ undertaking to this Court by two ( 2 ) weeks. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in light of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court [ Coram : B.R. Gavai and A.A. Sayed, JJ ] on 5/10/2010, more precisely clause (III), the petitioners had filed an application with the Collector for grant of permission to shift from the present premises, which application is still pending and consequent thereof nothing has been communicated by the Collector to the petitioners. Learned Assistant Govt. Pleader to take steps. 5 WP 1108.2011 - ( J ) 10. In the light of above, impugned communication is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. The petitioners to appear before the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad on 17/2/2011 at 11.00 a.m.. In the light of issues raised and the issues which would be put up by the petitioners before the authorities, Municipal Corporation shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the decision to the petitioners within two ( 2 ) weeks after hearing the petitioners. The Officer from CIDCO shall attend the hearing on 17/2/2011 and successive hearing as posted by the authorities of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 11. Rule is made absolute on above terms, with no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] knp/WP 1108.2011