1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3735 of 1994 1] Shri Munjaji s/o. Kishanrao Chorghade Age 46 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Sant Janabai Shopping Central gangakhed, Taluka Gangakhed District Parbhani. 2] Dr. Hidayatulla Khan s/o. Abdul Kayumkhan Occ. Doctor, R/o. As above. 3] Shri Dagdulal s/o. Ramkishan Somani Age 35 yeras, Occ. Business, R/o. As above. 4] Sow. Prabhawati w/o. Narayan Mangrulkar, Aged 50 years, Occ. Household & Business, R/o. As above. 5] Shri Govindrao s/o. Sheshrao Supekar, Aged 55 years, Occ.and R/o. As above. 6] Shri Avinash s/o. Muktaram Boke age 37 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 7] Shri Yadav s/o. Gangaram Saware, Aged 52 years, occ. And R/o. As above. ' 8] Shri Madhav s/o. Haribhau Kale Age 4 5 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 9] Shri Tanahari s/o. Hanumant Narhire, Aged 45 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 2 10] Shri Nandlal s/o. Babulal Jaiswal Aged 45 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 11] Shri Dwarkadas s/o. Govind Prasad Bajaj, Aged 30 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 12] Shri Laxman s/o. Rambhau Niras Aged 30 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 13] Shri Pralhad s/o. Balaji Gavankar, Aged 50 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 14] Shri Madanlal s/o. Hiralal Sharma Aged 58 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 15] Shri Sheshrao s/o. Khushaba Bhosle Aged 60 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 16] Dr. Baburao s/o. Tulsiram Changbhale Aged 40 years, Occ. Doctor, R/o. As above. 17] Shri Kailash s/o. Harikishan Zanwar, Aged 40 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 18] Shri Subhash s/o. Narayan Gundale Aged 45 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 19] Shri Uttam s/o. Shivajirao Rathod Aged 30 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 20] Shri Deepak s/o. Badrinarayan Soni, Aged 28 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 3 21] Shri Trimbak s/o. Rangnath Ayyal Aged 50 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 22] Shri Kalyan s/o. Vithalrao Typekar Aged 25 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 23] Shri Suresh s/o. Venkatrao Pekram Aged 30 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 24] Shri Kondiba s/o. Sayaji Jawade Aged 60 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 25] Abdul Salim s/o. Haji Mohd. Sarwar, Aged 27 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 26] Abdul Neem s/o. Haji Mohd. Sarwar Aged 30 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 27] Shri Suryabhan s/o. Abaji Ghanikar Aged 40 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 28]Sow. Shila w/o. Ashokrao Kondekar Aged 35 years, Occ. Household & R/o. As above. 29] Shri Baburao s/o. Rohidas Mehatre, Aged 55 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 30] Shri Deelip s/o. Vaijanathrao Arbad Aged 30 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 31] Shri Khushalrao s/o. Nivrtirao Sisode Aged 35 years, Occ. & R/o. As above. 4 32] Dilip Gowardhandas Sarada, Age major, Occ. Business R/o. As above. 33] Gangadhar Shankarrao Deshmukh Age major, Occ. Business R/o. As above. 34] Dattatraya Haribhau Bhalerao Age major, Occ. Business R/o. As above. Petitioners Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra 2] The Collector, Parbhani 3] The Town Planning Officer, Parbhani. 4] The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. Respondents Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.V. Muhdhe, Advocate for respondent No.4 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA,JJ. DATE : 18TH JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.] :- 1] The petitioners have filed the present petition 5 challenging the orders dated 14/9/1994 and 15/9/1994, issued by the respondent No.4. 2] The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent No.4 has exorbitantly levied the rent. It is the case of the petitioners that even prior to the completion of the construction of the Shopping Complex by the Municipal Council, they had paid the deposits and subsequently in the year 1992-93, they have been given possession. It is the contention of the petitioners that the rent that is assessed by the respondent No.4 is too exorbitant. It is the further contention of the petitioners that an opportunity of hearing was not given to them when the quantum of rent was fixed by the respondent No.4. 3] Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel relying on Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Municipalities ( Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1983, submits that when full premium is recovered, a nominal ground rent only shall be levied and according to him, that is the mandate of the rule. The respondent No.1 had not adhered to the said rule. The rent assessed cannot be said to be nominal ground rent, but is exorbitant one. 4] At the time when the matter was being admitted, by an interim order, this court had directed the Collector to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and then to submit a report regarding the quantum of rent. Record shows that the Collector has submitted a report and has also given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. There is nothing on record to show that the amount of deposit which was made at the initial stage as claimed by the petitioners, was an amount towards the full premium and as such, 6 the aforesaid Rule, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be brought into effect. 5] Powers of judicial review are limited in case of administrative action. In the present case, the process of assessing rent has not been challenged. To decide the question as to whether the rent is exorbitant or what should be the quantum of rent is the prerogative of the Collector. This court cannot sit in appeal over the said decision. Moreover, apart from the fact that passing of impugned order is the administrative act of the Collector, the transaction between the parties is purely of a commercial nature. It is in respect of shops which are being given on rent for commercial purpose. In such transactions also this court would be slow to interfere. 6] In the light of the above, we do not find any merit in the petition. Petition being sans merit, is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no orders as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] grt/wp