Mr. Umesh Mankapure v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors.

Mr. Umesh Mankapure for Petitioner. Mr. P.G.Sawant ‘B’ Panel Government Pleader for respondent. CORAM : K.K.TATED,J. DATE : 28/03/2011. PC: 1 Heard the learned counsel for parties. 2 By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is challenging the order/ communication dated 29th November, 2010 passed by the respondent restraining them from collecting the toll charges. Admittedly, the said order was challenged by the Petitioner by preferring an application under section 9 of the 2 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Judge at Pandharpur being Miscellaneous Civil Application No.16 of 2011. In the said application, both the sides argued and the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted their written arguments on 8th March, 2011. Thereafter, the trial court adjourned the matter for orders on 11th March, 2011 and again on 25th March, 2011. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner submits that on 25th March, 2011, the trial court again adjourned the matter to 30th March, 2011. 3 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner relies on the judgment in the matter of Rajendraprasad R.Singh vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, reported in 2003 (3) Mh.L.J. 757 and order dated 18th January, 2011 passed by this court (Coram: V.M.Kanade,J.) in Writ Petition No.107 of 2011 in the matter Ashok 3 Infrastructure Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and others. It is to be noted that facts in those two matters are altogether different. In the present case, matter is already heard by the learned trial court and kept for orders. 4 As the matter is kept for orders by the trial court, I do not find any substance to admit and pass interim order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, Petition is rejected.

(K.K.TATED,J.)