1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7178 OF 2008 DIST.: THANE Idea Cellular Limited & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation, and State of Maharashtra ...Respondents. Mr. C.U. Singh, Senior Advocate, i/by M/s. D.H. Law Associates for the Petitioners Mr. A.S. Rao with Mr. Vishal Patil for Respondent No. 1 Mr. V.S. Masurkar, Government Pleader, with Mr. N.S. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent No. 2. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATE: OCTOBER 21, 2008 P.C.:- This Writ Petition has been filed challenging letter / notices, Exhibits 'E' and 'G' to 'I', and a further relief has been sought that respondent No. 1 should grant permission to petitioner No. 1 on the application submitted by it. One of the notices, which is Exhibit 'E', is a 2 consequential notice to an order which has been passed on 12th August, 2008. 2. It appears from Exhibit 'E', which is dated 28th August, 2008, that an order of demolition was passed on 12th August, 2008. Therefore, all notices, which have been impugned in this petition, i.e., Exhibits 'E' and 'G' to 'I', are consequential to the order communicated to the petitioners by letter No. 237 dated 12th August, 2008. This order is not produced before us. This Court is not aware on what ground, this order had been passed. If the basic order is not challenged, the consequential orders cannot be challenged. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after a show-cause notice was given, he gave his explanation, and also sought regularisation if there was any violation in terms of Section 53(3) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, which reads as under:- “ Any person aggrieved by such notice may, within the period specified in the notice and in the manner prescribed, apply for permission under section 44 for retention on the land of any building or works or for the continuance of any use of the land, to which the notice relates, and pending the final determination or withdrawal of the application, the mere 3 notice itself shall not affect the retention of buildings or works or the continuation of such use.” This section does not cast a duty on the respondents to regularise any violation, and mere application does not also entitle a person to retain building or work or continuance of work. This provision further says that the application should be made within the period specified in the notice. Since we are not aware of the terms of the letter dated 12th August, 2008, therefore, we cannot appreciate as to whether the petitioners had moved the application within the time specified in Section 53(3) of the Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under Section 45(5) of the Act, it has to be deemed that the permission was granted, because there was no response for a period of 60 days. This argument cannot be appreciated, in view of the fact that the order of demolition has not been placed before us. 5. For all these reasons, this Writ Petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed in limine, and is accordingly dismissed. 4 BILAL NAZKI, J. J.H. BHATIA, J.