ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.7560 OF 2008 PETITION NO.7560 OF 2008 PETITION NO.7560 OF 2008 Gopal Vishnu Bhide ...Petitioner. Vs. Sangli Miraj Kupwad Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.G.H.Keluskar for Petitioner No.1. Mr.V.S.Tadake i/by Mr.M.L.Patil for the Petitioners. None for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 19th November, 2008. : 19th November, 2008. : 19th November, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Petition is against the interlocutory orders. 2. The Petitioner is the Original Plaintiff No.1 filed a suit seeking grant of mandatory and temporary injunction (Exhibit 5) in Regular Civil Suit No.6/2008. The injunction he sought was against the Defendant No.1 the Commissioner, Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad Municipal Corporation from obstructing them to reconstruct the demolished shops on the suit property. After considering the rival contention, the trial court, as well as, Appellate Court come to a clear finding that there is no case made out for grant of such temporary/mandatory injunction and thereby ( 2 ) rejected the said application. 3. It is needless to mention that the Respondent Corporation or local authorities are under obligation to perform their part of duties as contemplated. The suit in question is still pending. There is no question of granting such injunction against the local bodies. There is a procedure available, under the respective Act to initiate demolition action of all unauthorized constructions on public land or public places reserved for various public purposes. The Respondent Corporation, therefore, under obligation to take steps in accordance with law. Any way, the injunction as sought just cannot be granted in such fashion, pending final decision of the suit aginst the local authorities and the landlord. 4. There is no perversity in the concurrent interlocutory orders. The reasonings are well within the framework of law and the record. 5. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed by keeping all points open to be agitated in the suit. . No costs. ( 3 ) ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)