Ivory Properties & Hotels P v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.

drainage planning Respondent No.2."

In the earlier part of our order we had directed arrangement providing necessary drainage facility 31st December,

2005. As provided Review Applicants approached Court Review Petition 25th June, 2006 as their building plans were not processed on account of the order of this Court.

During the course of the hearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 2 a report Joint Meeting between Municipal Commissioner, M.C.G.M. Metropolitan Commissioner, MMRDA November, 2005 placed record. In 14th report Respondent Nos. 1 2 arrived arrangement construction Storm Water Drain. Nothing, however, is set out as to when the same would be completed.

It has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioners arrangement between Respondent Nos. 1 2 result 3 petitioners similarly situated persons having construction drainwhich permissible considering judgment Court statutory duties Respondent Nos. 1

2. decide controversy. It It necessary respondent No.1 impose conditions IOD aggrieved be open to them to challenge the same before a competent forum.

In the light of the arrangement arrived at between respondent Nos. 1 2 impugned order dated June 28, 2004 in so far as para.7 is varied to the following extent:- (i) It will be open to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to IOD subject conditions impose granting permission order of this Court directing the construction of storm water drain. (ii) The issue as to whether the Applicants as the owners property owners provided constructed whether consideration. Any person aggrieved levying charges minutes understanding challenge before a surrounding 4 Competent forum inclding this Court if such a chalenge is available. (iii) With the above observations, review petition stands disposed of. REBELLO, J) (F.I. REBELLO, J) (F.I. REBELLO, J) (F.I. SATHE, J.) (S.R.S.R.S.R. SATHE, J.) SATHE, J.)