Venkatrao Mukundraoo Nemaniwar And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

1 RA 210 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 923 REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 210 OF 2016 IN WP/12008/2015 VENKATRAO MUKUNDRAOO NEMANIWAR AND ANOTHER

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS -------- Shri. A.G. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate, for applicants. Shri. S.J. Salgare, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Shri. V.P. Latange, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Shri. B.A. Darak, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ---------- CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J.

DATE : 24 JANUARY 2017 ORDER:

1) The application is filed for review of the order made by this Court in Writ Petition No.12008 of 2015. Heard learned counsel for the applicants.

2) Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there has been mis-appreciation of some record and documents by this Court and due to that error has been

2 RA 210 of 2016 committed by this Court in deciding the matter against the present applicants. Even if for the purpose of the present proceeding the submission is accepted as it is, in that case the remedy is there to challenge the decision of this Court. This Court is not expected to reappreciate the material in review.

3) Another submission was made that the Collector had made two orders in disqualification proceeding. It was submitted that under first part of the order there was order of disqualification and under second part of the order the Collector used the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act to order to pull down the illegal construction. Learned counsel submitted that there was no power with the Collector to make such order but such order was made and this aspect ought to have been considered by this Court. This Court has considered the order made by the Collector. The parties to the proceeding who were responsible for making construction were before the Collector. What is required is that the opportunity needs to be given and further this Court was considering only

3 RA 210 of 2016 the disqualification in present proceeding. The submissions made show that now separate writ petition is filed by the applicants to challenge the order made by the Collector by which the construction is directed to be pulled down. This circumstance shows that present applicants are misusing the process of law by filing proceedings one after the other.

4) The applicants could have challenged the order by filing appropriate proceeding in the Supreme Court but in stead of doing that present proceeding is filed. To curb this tendency this Courts holds that cost need to be imposed on the applicants. The review application is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) which is to be paid to the Government. Registrar (Judicial) is to take steps for recovery of the cost amount.

Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J. ) rsl