JUDGMENT - CHAPALGAONKAR N.P., J.:---Rule made returnable for with consent.

2. This petition makes a very short grievance that the permission granted to the petitioners Nos. 1,4,5, and 6 to construct a building has been cancelled by Respondent No. 3 without affording an opportunity of hearing. It arises out of the following facts:

3. On 4th May, 1988, the permission under section 45 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, the Act) was granted in favour of Petitioners No. 1, 4, 5 and 6. Accordingly the construction work was started. Subsequently, on 30th January, 1989, respondent No. 3 stayed the operation of the permission and directed the petitioners not to construct the building in accordance with the permission already granted. It is this order which is challenged by the petitioners in this petition.

4. We have heard Mr. B.N. Bajpai, learned Counsel for the petitioners Nos. 1 to 5, Mr. N.K. Kakde, learned Government Pleader for Respondents 1 and 2, Mr. H.T. Joshi learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. V.D. Gunale holding for V.G. Sakolkar, learned Advocates for respondent No. 4.

5. The grievance made by Mr. Bajpai before us is that the permission

Click Here to Read the rest of this document