(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3992 OF 1997 1. Somnath s/o. Gangadhar Bomble, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. CTS No. 4062, Rangargalli, Aurangabad. 2. Balkrishna s/o. Dattaji Bomble, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. CTS No. 4054, Rangargalli, Aurangabad. 3. Vijay s/o. Dattatraya Pujari, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. CTS No. 4370, Rangargalli, Aurangabad. 4. Arjunlal s/o. Dhulichand Meghawali, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. CTS No. 4388, Rangargalli, Aurangabad. 5. Smt. Asarabai w/o. Ambuji More, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. CTS No. 4092, Rangargalli, Aurangabad. (2) 6. Ramesh s/o. Mithulal Kolhapure, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. CTS No. 4055, Rangargalli, Aurangabad. 7. Ayubkhan s/o. Rasulkhan, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. CTS No. 4052, Rangargalli, Aurangabad. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, through its Municipal Commissioner. 2. The Assistant Director, Town Planning, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. 3. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 4. The Collector, Collectorate, Aurangabad. .. Respondents. ....................... (3) Mr. P.G. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.N. Pagare, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. N.B. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.3 and 4. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 28TH JUNE 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the allotment of shops at Aurangpura vegetable market, situated at Aurangabad. 2. The allotment of shops is of the year 1996. The persons, to whom shops have been allotted, have not been impleaded as party respondents. As such, if the relief, as sought by the petitioners, is granted, at this stage, it would seriously prejudice rights of the persons to whom shops have been allotted. As such, relief sought by the petitioners, cannot be (4) granted. 3. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp3992