1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPICATION NO. 10864 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4085 OF 2007 Satyasheel Avinash Akole ..APPLICANT VERSUS Mohd. Zahed s/o Mohd. Hafeez & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr Sandeep S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant; Mr S.S. Kazi, Advocate for respondents no.1 & 2; Mr S.V. Kurundkar, Addl.G.P. for respondents no.3, 5 & 7; Mr M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.4. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 7th Sept., 2009 PER COURT : This is an application filed by the applicant, who is original respondent no.4 in Writ Petition No.4085 of 2007 seeking vacation of the interim order of stay granted by the Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 26.2.2008. 2. It appears that Writ Petition No.4085 of 2007 has been filed by the petitioner in public interest questioning the building permission granted to respondents no.4 & 5. It is averred in the petition that the building permission has been granted contrary to the Rules and the respondents, by flouting the terms and conditions of the building permission have 2 carried out illegal construction. The Division Bench of this Court had directed the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- since this was a public interest litigation. The petitioners accordingly deposited the said amount of Rs.10,000/-. This Court had also directed the issuance of notice by its order dated 4.8.2007. When the petition was listed for admission before the Court none had appeared on behalf of the present applicant and original respondent no.5. The Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 26.2.2008 issued Rule in the petition and directed the respondents no.4 & 5 to maintain status quo and granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (D) to the petition. Prayer clause (D) to the petition is in respect of grant of stay to the building permission granted by the respondents dated 16.12.2006 and also prays for issuance of a temporary injunction restraining respondents no.4 & 5 to carry out the construction on land at C.T.S. No.1810 and 1810-A. The applicant being aggrieved by the aforesaid order has filed the present application. 3. We have heard Shri S.S. Deshmukh, learned Counsel who appears on behalf of the applicant; Shri S.S. Kazi, learned Counsel who appears on behalf of the original petitioners and Shri M.S. Deshmukh, learned Counsel who appears on behalf of original respondent no.2. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties we have perused the averments in the petition. It is the contention of Shri Kazi, learned Counsel for the original petitioners that the aforesaid construction has been carried out by the respondents in utter violation of the building permission and the construction is illegal. It is also urged before us that the aforesaid building permission itself is contrary to the Rules and is illegal and is liable to be quashed and set aside. On the other hand, it is contended by Shri M.S. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for original respondent no.2 that the aforesaid building permission came to be granted in accordance with the existing Rules and upon verification of the title and consequently no flaw can be found in the building permission. Shri S.S. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the applicant has urged before 3 us that the applicant is constructing a commercial complex and the R.C.C. structure has already been erected and some brick work has also been done. It is also urged before us that the applicant has obtained loan of Rs.1,10,00000/- from the financial institution and if the stay is not vacated the applicant would be put to irreparable loss as the applicant would be required to pay heavy amount by way of interest as well as the prospective customers i.e. those who have booked the commercial premises would be deterred away. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant has invited our attention to the photographs and from the photographs it can be seen that a major part of the R.C.C. construction is completed. The building permission came to be granted to the applicant and respondent no.5 by an order dated 16.12.2006. This public interest litigation has been filed on 19.6.2007 and the interim order came to be passed on 26.2.2008. In the light of the fact that the applicant has obtained loan for the said construction and major part of the R.C.C. construction has been erected, we are inclined to vacate the interim stay granted by this Court. We, however, make it clear that the construction carried out earlier and the construction which would be carried out in future would be subject to the result of the petition. If the applicant/respondent no.4 allots the shops ion the said building to the prospective customers, the allottees be informed about the pendency of this petition and the fact that the construction is subject to the result of the petition. The allottees shall not claim any equities in law nor the applicant would be entitled to claim any equities in law. 4 5. Application is allowed accordingly and the order dated 26.2.2008 insofar as it relates to grant of an order of of status quo and interim relief in terms of prayer clause (D) to the petition stands vacated. No costs. ( A.V.POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/ca10864.08