1 S.A.No.750/10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.750 OF 2010 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 14.12.2010. 1. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit challenging the notice issued by the Respondent. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 2. Mr.Lokhande, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the notice issued is not legal and proper. Unless the notice issued complies with all provisions of law, no action on behalf of the Respondent can be taken. The 2 S.A.No.750/10 learned counsel further submits that the construction made by the plaintiff is legal and it does not violate any of the provisions of the byelaws. The plaintiff had the necessary permission and pursuant to that the construction has been made. According to the learned counsel, the Courts below have not considered this aspect and have erroneously dismissed the suit. 3. I have gone through the judgments delivered by both the Courts. It has come on record that the plaintiff had constructed a room on the upper floor, for which there was no permission. As the said room was without permission, it was within the authority of the Respondent to issue the said notice. In such circumstances when no permission is there, as such construction can not be protected. The notice issued can not faulted with. In such circumstances, the Second Appeal being devoid of any substantial question of law, is dismissed. 4. Mr.Lokhande, learned counsel states that the said room is not against the byelaws and it is 3 S.A.No.750/10 within the powers of Respondent to regularise the same and for the said purpose the appellant would file an application for regularisation. 5. The provisions of Regional Town Planning Act, prescribes a provision for regularisation. The present proceedings would not be an impediment for the appellant to file such an application with the present Respondent and if such application is filed, the Respondent shall consider the same on its own merits. The Second Appeal accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.14.12.2010. asp/office/sa750.10 4 S.A.No.750/10