1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3660 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5350 OF 2007 Shivkumar Bansilal Modi, R/o- Plot No.17, N-2, CIDCO, Kasliwal Corner, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, and Town Planning Authority, Aurangabad, Tq. and Dist-Aurangbad 2) Ward Officer, Ward (B), The Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, Tq. and Dist-Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.R.R. Mantri Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.S.N. Pagare, Advocate for Respondents. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 10TH JUNE, 2010. 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned notice issued to the Petitioner is required to be set aside on the ground that the Petitioner is not the owner of the premises. He is running liquor shop in the said premises. The learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on earlier proceedings of the Writ Petition No.2595 of 2004 and Writ Petition No.7840 of 2006. Based on the same, the counsel submits that the same issue cannot be re-agitated by the Municipal Corporation again and again. 3. Shri. Pagare, the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation submits that appropriate notice would be issued to the owner of the structure in which liquor shop, is being run by the Petitioner. The counsel further submits that present impugned notice dated 3 17th May, 2007 addressed to the Petitioner by the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, is not pressed and the same is withdrawn. 4. In the facts of the case, we find that in case the Municipal Corporation desires to verify the legality of the subject structure, then appropriate notice in accordance with law is required to be issued to the owner of the subject structure. In that view of the matter and the statement made by the counsel for the Municipal Corporation, we dispose of this Writ Petition. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the present Order may run contrary to the Order passed in Writ Petition No.2595 of 2004. We clarify that all the issues are kept open in respect of the satisfaction of the Authorities about the legality of the subject construction. 6. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, nothing survives for consideration in 4 the Civil Application No.5350 of 2007 and the same is disposed of. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JUNE10/wp3660.07