-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3099 OF 2008 Waheguru Apartments .. Petitioner. V/s. 1. Addl. Chief Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mantralaya & Ors. .. Respondents. --- Mr.J.S.Chandnani for the Petitioner. Mr. P.I.Khemani, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1,2 & 4. Mr.S.N.Kamble i/by Mr. Vijay Patil for Respondent No.3. ----- CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 16TH JULY, 2008. DATED : 16TH JULY, 2008. DATED : 16TH JULY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard Mr.Chandnani, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Kamble for respondent no.3 and Khemani, learned AGP for the respondent nos. 1,2 & 4. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties and heard finally. 3. The brief facts for the purpose of disposal of this petition are as follows : 4. Each member of the petitioner society filed an -: 2 :- application in the year 2007 with the respondent no.2 for regularisation of their unauthorised construction/ development. This application came to be rejected by the respondent no.2 on 16.06.2007. The petitioner, thereafter, constrained to prefer an appeal under section 6 of the Maharashtra Act No.9 before the respondent no.1 and the respondent no. 1 by the impugned order dismissed the petitioner’s appeal. 5. Mr.Chandnani, Advocate, for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no.2 while rejecting the petitioner’s proposal did not assign any specific reason or give any ground as specified in the aforesaid Act. The petitioner’s application was rejected only on the vague grounds that the construction in question is adjacent to the public road and internal road. He further submitted that his appeal is also dismissed by the respondent no.1 on the new ground, namely, that the unauthorised construction is affecting internal busy road and further balconies of the building effected in the passage of the road. In the submission of Mr. Chandnani this ground which is taken specifically by the appellate authority,to reject his appeal was not disclosed to him either by the designated authority or by the appellate authority during the pendency of the appeal and he was taken by surprise. -: 3 :- 6. The learned AGP and Mr. Kamble supported the impugned order. 7. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, in my opinion, there is merit in the petition. Perusal of the order of the designated authority reveals that the same is passed in a stereotype manner and no specific ground is given to reject the petitioner’s proposal for regularization of the unauthorised development. The petitioner’s appeal is also rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that balconies of the petitioner’s building are affecting internal passage of the road. The contention of Mr. Chandnani for the petitioner that neither the designated authority nor the appellate authority gave an opportunity to the petitioner to show that in fact balconies are not effected in internal passage of road, is not disputed by the learned AGP and the counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 as well. Had the petitioner made known the ground on which his proposal is rejected, in that case, surely the petitioner would have submitted material evidence to show that because of those balconies, the passage of road is not affected. In that view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the appellate authority has not followed principles of natural justice and fair -: 4 :- play. On this ground alone the impugned orders passed by the designated authority and the appellate authority are deserve to be set aside and the matter, required to be remanded back to the designated authority for hearing afresh. In these facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose off the petition by passing following order : 8. The impugned orders passed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no.2, the designated authority, to decide the petitioner’s proposal for regularization of unauthorised development on its own merit, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondent shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and in any case within the period of three months from the date of the receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. ( R.V. MORE, J.) .....