1

9 wp.10714.21.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

9 WRIT PETITION NO.10714 OF 2021

RUPESH CHANDRASHEKHAR KARANJE,

THROUGH GPA HOLDER RATNADEEP SIDRAMAPPA UTGE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

...

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Vinayak Sudhakar Bedre.

AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. P. Tiwari.

Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. Hanmant V. Patil.

...

CORAM :

S. V. GANGAPURWALA &

R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

DATE :

04^th October, 2021.

P.C.:

.

The petitioner is assailing the order canceling the construction

permission and asking the petitioner to demolish the construction.

2

Mr. Bedre, learned counsel submits that the petitioner was

issued with construction permission after following due procedure of

law. Abruptly, without issuing notice to the petitioner, the petitioner’s

construction permission is canceled. The principles of natural justice

are not adhered to.

3

Mr. Patil, learned counsel for Municipal Corporation submits that

respondent No.4 has communicated to the Deputy Collector, Latur to

fix the market value of the disputed property so that the acquisition

2

9 wp.10714.21.odt

proceedings can be initiated. No prejudice would be caused to the

petitioner as he would be adequately compensated as per the

provision of the Unified Development Control and Promotion

Regulation, 2020.

4

The power vests with the planning authority to revoke or modify

the permission already granted, but subject to giving an opportunity of

hearing to the concerned person.

5

In the present case, admittedly, opportunity of hearing has not

been given to the petitioner and straightway the construction

permission has been cancelled and further the petitioner is directed to

demolish the construction. The principles of natural justice are not

adhered to nor Section 51 of the MRTP Act is followed.

6

In light of the above, we pass the following order:

O R D E R

I.

The impugned order shall be construed as show cause

notice to the petitioner.

II.

The petitioner within seven days shall file his reply.

III.

After getting the reply from the petitioner within seven

3

9 wp.10714.21.odt

days, the respondent Corporation shall give opportunity

of hearing to the petitioner preferably within fifteen days

and shall take decision with regard to the

cancellation/modification of the construction permission

to the petitioner on its own merits, preferably within one

month.

IV.

Till the final decision is taken by the Corporation as

observed above, the status-quo with regard to the writ

property be maintained.

V.

It is made clear that the petitioner shall also not make

further construction nor the respondent Corporation

shall take steps for demolition of the same.

VI.

The parties may take further steps pursuant to the

decision that would be taken by the Corporation.

VII. All contentions kept open.

VIII. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

[ R. N. LADDHA, J. ]

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

nga