G.S. Kulkarni, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties and at their request taken up for final hearing.

2. The petitioner is the owner of plot nos.11 and 12 carved out in a private layout in land bearing Survey No.110 Hissa no.01 situated at Village Ravet, Taluka Haveli situated within the municipal limits of Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (for short 'municipal corporation').

3. In this proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Hon'ble Minister for Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra, as communicated by a letter dated 28 September 2016 of the Under Secretary of Government of Maharashtra. By the impugned decision, the Hon'ble Minister while rejecting the statutory appeal as filed by respondent no.3Sahyadri Devcon (for short 'Sahyadri') against the rejection of his development permission, converted the said appeal into a representation and has issued certain directions which has enabled the municipal corporation to reconsider the rejection of the development proposal of respondent no.3 and grant respondent no.3 a development permission.

4. The substantive prayers as made in the petition read thus :

“(D) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Order/Direction being No.TPS1816/ C No.91/16/NV13 dated 28.09.2016 issued by the Under Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Maharashtra.

(E) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari and be pleased to cancel the Sanction, if any, granted by the Respondent No.02 to the Respondent No.03 consequent to and based on the impugned Order/Direction bearing No.TPS1816/ C. No.91/16/NV13 dated 28.09.2016 issued by the Under Secretary, Urban Development; Government of Maharashtra.”

5. The impugned decision is taken by the Hon'ble Minister on Sahyadri's appeal filed under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (for short 'MRTP Act'). Sahyadri intended to undertake large development on area which also forms part of Survey No.110. Sahyadri had accordingly submitted plans to the Municipal Corporation. Since under the Development Control Regulation No.10.3 the necessary requirement of the width of road for accessing the plot of land was an access of minimum 12 meters, and as the available existing access was not fulfilling the requirement of the DC Regulations, the municipal corporation rejected Sahyadri's development proposal by its communication dated 24 March 2015. The municipal corporation was of the opinion that the existing road of 3 meters to 4.5 meters wide in the private layout was not sufficient. (The translated version of the said vernacular communication dated 24 March 2015 of the municipal corporation as prescribed by the petitioner reads thus :

“1. The width of the access road for the said plot is not in accordance with the Municipal Corporation Development Control Regulation.

2. It is necessary to give the present access road to the remaining plot holders adjoining to the said plot.

Due to lack of above compliance, no action can be taken in your case. Hence, as per Section 45 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966 your construction permission is rejected, please take note of this.”

6. In the private lay out in question, different plots of land were formed which were already owned by the petitioner and some other persons, the land of Sahyadri except for the existing road of the width of 3 to 4.5 metres a proper access was not available to the said plot as per the rules. Being confronted with such fait accompli, Sahyadri purchased one of the plots in the private layout so that such plot can be utilized as an access to the Sayhadri's plot namely the proposed development site of Sahyadri being part of survey no.110. However, while do