High Court
Legal Reasoning
WP 19 25.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 19 OF 2024WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1728 OF 2024 IN WP/7741/2020WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2583 OF 2025 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15017/2023WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15017 OF 2025 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13506/2023CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13762 OF 2023 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13506 OF 20231.Koushik Pravinchand Kothari,Age 55 years, Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o Kachan Bungalow, Punammoti Nagar, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar.2. Dhanashree Dhananjay Joshi,Age 53 years, Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o Aousarkar Mala, Burudgaon, Rd. Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar.3. Nanasaheb Eknath Deshmukh,Age 50 years, Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o Aanand Park, Sarasnagar, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar.4. Sangram Santosh Suryawanshi,Age 32 years, Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o Bhavaninagar, Ahmednagar.5. Komal Sandesh Munot, Age 32 years,Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o Munot Estate, Station Road, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar.6. Nitin Popatlal Shingavi, Age 53 years,Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o Sourbha Nagar, Bhingar, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar.1/19 WP 19 25.odt7. Kiran Amarlal Darda, Age 42 years,Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o Market yard, Ahmednagar.8. Bhaskar Vamanrao Pawar, Age 52 years,Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o Shiv Banlow, Burudgaon, Road, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar.9. Sourabh Anil Bhalgat, Age 32 years,Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o Aanand Park, Saras Nagar Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar.10.Dhanesh Ganeshmal Kothari,Age 53 years, Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o Chhaya Banglow, Kinetic Chowk, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar.11. Dipali Dhanesh Kothari, Age 50 years,Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o Chhaya Banglow, Kinetic Chowk, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar.12. Ritesh Ramesh Sonimandelecha,Age 50 years, Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o Pushkaraj Banlow, Munot Estate, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar.13.Rahul Sunil Aouti, Age 47 years,Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o Shinde Galli, Maliwada, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar.14. Avinash Bhanudas Pawar, Age 42 years,Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o Sakat Khurd, Ahmednagar. District Ahmednagar.15. Abhay Rasiklal Luniya, Age 48 years,Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o Sai Nagar, Burudgaon, Road, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar.16. Rahul Subhash Sonimandelecha,Age 43 years, Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o Near Bora Furniture, Saras Nagar, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar.2/19 WP 19 25.odt17. Manisha Rahul Sonimandelecha,Age 43 years, Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o Near Bora Furniture , Saran Nagar, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar.18. Mrunalini Yeshwant Darekar,Age 45 years, Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o Sai Nagar, Nakshtra Lown, Burudgaon Road, Ahmednagar.19. Prasad Pramod Bora, Age 30 years,Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o Anuraon Grand, Maniknagar, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar.20. Shobha Vijay Munot, Age 59 years,Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o Munot Estate, Station Road, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar.21. Vidya Rajendra Sobale, Age 45 years,Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o Sutar Galli, Kedgaon, Ahmednagar.22. Ajit Nemichand Kasliwal,Age 58 years, Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o C-5, Sandip Nagar, Saras Nagar, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar.23. Mangal Mahavir Chhajed, Age 50 years,Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o C-4, Aanand Park, Saras Nagar, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar.24. Sunita Rajendra Kothari, Age 48 years,Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o C-4, Aanand Park, Saras Nagar, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar.25. Vijay Anbarchand Ghandhi, Age 58 years,Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o Parshwanath Colony, Punammoti Nagar, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar.26. Vaibhav Vikram Dabhade, Age 50 years,3/19
Legal Reasoning
WP 19 25.odtOccu, Agri Alied Business, R/o Minavikram Bangalow, Near Ananrushiji Hospital, Ahmednagar,27. Vishal Vikram Dabhade, Age 52 years,Occu. Agri Alied Business, R/o Minavikram Bangalow, Near Anankrushiji Hospital, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar.… PETITIONERSVERSUS1. The State of MaharashtraThrough its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.2. The Ahmednagar Municipal CorporationAhmednagar, Through Its Municipal Commissioner.3. The Assistant Director of Town Planning,Municipal Corporation, Ahmednagar.4.The Agriculture Produce Market Committee,Ahmednagar, Kisan Kranti Bldg., Station Road, Market Yard, Ahmednagar, Through its Secretary. 5.Dilip Nanabhau Satpute, Age 48 years,Occu. Social Service, R/o Bhushan Nagar, Ahmadnagar.6.Ahmadnagar Vegetable Fruits,Merchants Association Through its Authorized Representative… RESPONDENTS…Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the petitioners in W.P. No. 19/2024 and forApplicant in C.A. No. 13762/2023.Mr. S.R. Wakale, A.G.P. for Respondent no. 1.Mr. V.D. Hon, Senior Advocate, i/by Mr. K.N. Lokhande, Advocate forRespondent no. 3Mr. G.K. Naik Thigle, Advocate for Respondent nos. 5 and 6 in WP No.19/2024 and for Applicant in C.A. No. 1728/2024.Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate, i/by Ms. Rekha M. Mohale, Advocate forAPMC Ahmednagar and for Applicant in C.A. No. 15017/2023.4/19 WP 19 25.odt...CORAM: MANGESH S. PATIL & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON :: 24.04.2025 09.05.2025JUDGMENT : (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)Heard. Rule. It is made returnable forthwith. The learned A.G.P.Wakale waives service for respondent no. 1. Mr. Hon, Senior Advocate i/byMr. Lokhande, learned advocate waives service for respondent no. 3Municipal Council, Ahilyanagar. Learned advocate Mr. Naik-Thigle waivesservice for respondent nos. 5 and 6 and Mr. Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/byMs. Rekha Mohite waives service for respondent no. 3 Agricultural ProduceMarket Committee, Ahilyanagar (APMC).2.The petitioners claim to be allottees-lease holders of different shopserected over plot no. 23 under the town planning scheme No. 3 ofAhmednagar, owned by respondent no. 4-Agricultural Produce MarketCommittee, Ahilyanagar (the APMC). They are coming with followingprayers.“B)By issuing a writ of mandamus, orders, directions or anyother appropriate writ in like nature, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3may kindly be directed to regularize the shops (existingstructures on plot no. 23) of the petitioners existing on the areaof land belonging to Respondent No.4-Committee, as per theRevised layout plan sanctioned by Respondent No.3 vide orderdated 12th December, 2023;C)By issuing an appropriate writ, order or directions, as thecase may be, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 may kindly berestrained from demolishing the shops (existing structures onplot no. 23) of the petitioners existing on the area of landbelonging to Respondent No.4-Committee, and furtherrestraining them from taking any coercive action against thepetitioners in view of subsequent development occurred after5/19 WP 19 25.odtpassing the order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred toabove.”3.It is imperative that there is some narration of the chronology ofevents leading to filing of the petition. (a)The Deputy Commissioner of respondent no. 2 namely theAhmednagar Municipal Corporation now Ahilyanagar, by an order dated21.07.2018, rejected the proposal submitted by APMC for regularization ofconstruction of petitioners’ shops.(b)Pursuant to such order, even the APMC by communicationdated 01.08.2018 called upon these petitioners to act pursuant to the order.(c)The APMC preferred an appeal before the State Government,which was dismissed by the learned Minister of the Urban Development on15.07.2019, resulting in confirmation of the order passed by the DeputyCommissioner dated 21.07.2018.(d)Different groups of the lease holders of the shops, including thepetitioners, filed separate petitions, Writ Petition Nos. 8894/2012,8946/2012, 9013/2018, 9022/2018, seeking regularization of the shops andobjecting to the demolition.(e)Simultaneously, the APMC filed Writ Petition No. 7741/2020,challenging the order of the learned Minister dismissing its appeal on15.07.2019.(f)Respondent no. 6-Ahmednagar Vegetable Fruits Merchants Association filed Writ Petition No. 11220/2021 seeking demolition of all these shops.(g)All these petitions were decided by a division bench of thisCourt on 30.06.2023. The petitions of the lease holders including thesepetitioners were dismissed. Even the writ petition filed by the APMC was6/19
Decision
WP 19 25.odtdismissed. The petition filed by respondent no. 6 was partly allowed. TheMunicipal Corporation was directed to take necessary steps for removal ofillegal, unauthorized construction/encroachment over plot nos. 17 and 23,in pursuance of the notices, which were already served on the APMC underSection 52, 53, 54 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966(MRTP Act) read with Section 260(1), 260(2) and Section 478 of theMaharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (MMC Act) within threemonths. (h)Respective shop owners preferred different Special Leave toAppeal/s before the Supreme Court. By order dated 21.08.2023 in SpecialLeave to Appeal (Civil) No. 17414/2023, all the SLPs were dismissed withfollowing order:“We do not find any good ground and reason to interferewith the impugned judgment and hence, the special leavepetitions are dismissed.However, we clarify that the impugned judgment/orderand the dismissal of the present special leave petitions wouldnot come in the way of the Agriculture Produce MarketCommittee, Ahmednagar, in filing an application for change ofthe layout plan or for construction of shops in areas where suchshops are permitted to be constructed. If any such application isfiled, the same would be considered and examined inaccordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.The Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Ahmednagarwill be permitted to use open plots in accordance with law.Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”(i)Taking aid of the aforementioned paragraph no. 2 of theSupreme Court order, the APMC, by communication dated 21.08.2023 (Exh.C) addressed a letter to the Municipal Corporation, narrating theaforementioned facts, and requested that pursuant to Unified DevelopmentControl and Promotion Regulations (UDCPR) clause No. 3.4.3, for alterationin the layout scheme, considering the fact that the shops in question wereerected over plot Nos. 17 and 23, which were earmarked as open spaces and7/19 WP 19 25.odtsubmitting that in order to save those, open space that was available, hasbeen earmarked in exchange, and prayed for grant of permission to suchchanged layout at the earliest. (j)The Municipal Corporation forwarded the proposal to Directorof Town Planning Pune on 27.09.2023 (Exh. D), and an opinion wassolicited narrating all the aforementioned circumstances. (k)By representation dated 23.08.2023 (Exh. E), the petitionersagain requested the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation to not todemolish the shops on the final plot no. 23. (l)Writ Petition Nos. 7741/2020 and 11220/2021 were mentionedbefore the division bench of this Court on 27.10.2023. After hearing thelearned advocate for the APMC, the advocate for respondent no. 6Ahmednagar Vegetable Fruits, Merchants Association, the learned A.G.P. andthe learned advocate for the Municipal Corporation, following order waspassed:“Writ Petition No. 11220/2021 is not on board. Byconsent, taken on board.2. Considering the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court videorder dated 21.08.2023 passed in Special Leave to AppealNo.17414/2023, we grant time to the A.P.M.C. to remove theencroachment/structure voluntarily and if required the A.P.M.C.can seek assistance of the Municipal Corporation and apprisethe Court about the same on the next date. The MunicipalCommissioner of Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation wouldremain present in the Court on the next date, in view of thecommunication on the part of the Corporation in not complyingwith the judgment delivered by this Court on 30.06.2023 in WritPetition No.7741/2023 which has been upheld by the Hon'bleSupreme Court.3.List this petition on 04.11.2023 in the urgent orderscategory.”8/19 WP 19 25.odt(m)The APMC challenged this order before the Supreme Court inSpecial Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 45937/2023. It was dismissed on03.11.2023 with follow order:“Upon mentioning, the matter is taken on board.We are not inclined to interfere with the impugnedjudgment and hence, the special leave petitions aredismissed.Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposedof.” (n)In spite of the aforementioned happenings, since the demolitionwas not taking place, the Commissioner of the Municipal Council was calledupon to remain personally present before the high court and to place onrecord the compliance report.(o)An attempt was made by the Commissioner, MunicipalCorporation to explain the fact situation without undertaking actualdemolition. The attempt was met by following order, on 08.11.2023:“By the judgment dated 30.06.2023 in Writ PetitionNo.7741/2020 (Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs. TheHon'ble Minister, Urban Development Department and others)and other group of petitions, including Writ PetitionNo.11220/2021, this Court concluded the issue as regards theencroachments made by certain people. The said judgment wasassailed before the Honourable Supreme Court in Petition forSpecial Leave to Appeal (C) No.17414/2023. By order dated21.08.2023, the SLP was dismissed and in addition, theHonourable Supreme Court recorded as under:-"However, we clarify that the impugnedjudgment/ order and the dismissal of the presentspecial leave petitions would not come in the way ofthe Agriculture Produce Market Committee,Ahmednagar, in filing an application for change ofthe layout plan or for construction of shops in areaswhere such shops are permitted to be constructed. Ifany such application is filed, the same would be9/19 WP 19 25.odtconsidered and examined in accordance with law andas expeditiously as possible.The Agriculture Produce Market Committee,Ahmednagar will be permitted to use open plots inaccordance with law."2. Since this Court, vide judgment dated 30.06.2023, haddirected the compliance report to be filed, the matter was listedbefore this Court. On 27.10.2023, we issued a direction, whichis set out in paragraph 2, as under:-"2. Considering the direction of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt vide order dated 21.08.2023 passed in SpecialLeave to Appeal No.17414/2023, we grant time tothe A.P.M.C. to remove the encroachment/ structurevoluntarily and if required the A.P.M.C. can seekassistance of the Municipal Corporation and apprisethe Court about the same on the next date. TheMunicipal Commissioner of Ahmednagar MunicipalCorporation would remain present in the Court onthe next date, in view of the communication on thepart of the Corporation in not complying with thejudgment delivered by this Court on 30.06.2023 inWrit Petition No.7741/2023 which has been upheldby the Hon'ble Supreme Court."3.The learned Senior Counsel Shri Dhorde fairly points outto us that the Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC)had assailed the above reproduced order dated 27.10.2023before the Honourable Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition(Civil) Diary No.45937/2023. By order dated 03.11.2023, theHonourable Supreme Court stated that "We are not inclined tointerfere with the impugned judgment and hence, the specialleave petitions are dismissed."4. It is thus, obvious that the APMC has to removeencroachments/ structures, voluntarily. The learned SeniorAdvocates Shri Dhorde and Shri Hon, representing the APMCand Municipal Corporation, respectively, submit that there is nohindrance and they are cooperating with each other.10/19 WP 19 25.odt5. Shri. Thigale, the learned Advocate representing theoriginal Petitioners in Writ Petition No.11220/2021, submitsthat the Municipal Corporation should not be permitted toprotect the encroachment.6. In view of the above, we would expect the MunicipalCorporation to comply with our directions dated 27.10.2023 inthe light of the SLP having been dismissed by the HonourableSupreme Court.7. For the above purpose and to tender a compliance report,which shall be in tune with the judgment of this Court dated30.06.2023, the order of the Honourable Supreme Court dated21.08.2023, the directions of this Court dated 27.10.2023 andthe order of the Honourable Supreme Court dated 03.11.2023,time is extended till 15.12.2023. The Commissioner of theMunicipal Corporation shall note that we would not extend thetime even by a day.8. Place the compliance report before the Court on18.12.2023. Place the matter on 18.12.2023 in the urgentorders category.9. The Civil Application No.13506/2023 is disposed off.”(p)In tune with such directions, the matters appeared before thisCourt on 06.12.2024. After hearing the parties and by noticing andexpressly noting/incorporating the order dated 08.11.2023 (supra),following additional observations were made in paragraph Nos. 5 to 8:“5.It appears that the Commissioner of the MunicipalCorporation addressed a letter to the Registrar of this Courtdated 13/14.12.2023, inter alia mentioning and informingthe Court that the application of the A.P.M.C. Ahmednagardated 21.08.2023, for revision of the layout was pendingwith the Corporation and the Corporation by itscommunication dated 27.08.2023, had solicited opinionfrom the Director, Town Planning, Pune. It furthermentions that as per the Development Control Regulations,11/19 WP 19 25.odtthe proposal for modification of the layout has beensanctioned provisionally and it is only after the Office ofDeputy Inspector of Land Records carried out themeasurements that the final sanction would be accordedand it is thereafter that the disputed construction would beregularized. It further informs that it is only after requestis received for regularization of the construction, afterconsidering the comprehensive development plan,regulations and in accordance with the provisions ofSection 143 of the Maharashtra Regional and TownPlanning Act, 1966, by receiving the development andother allied charges, the construction can be regularized.6.Once having noticed that the Supreme Court hadrefused to interfere in the order passed by this Court in thewrit petition directing demolition/removal of theencroachment, in our considered view, the A.P.M.C. as wellas the Municipal Corporation have not been taking anyeffective steps for demolition/removal of theencroachment.7.Even if it is a matter of record that the SupremeCourt while dismissing the Special Leave Petition hadclarified that dismissal of the Special Leave Petition wouldnot come in the way of the A.P.M.C, in filing an applicationfor change of the layout plan or for construction of shops inareas where such shops were permitted to be constructedand expecting any such application to be considered andexamined in accordance with law and even permitting theA.P.M.C. Ahmednagar to use the open plots, in accordancewith law, the order cannot be interpreted to meanregularization of any unauthorized construction which wasdirected to be demolished.8.We are of the considered view that neither theA.P.M.C. nor the Municipal Corporation has been obeyingthe directions of this Court, confirmed up to the SupremeCourt and have been able to dodge the order. Let theA.P.M.C. Ahmednagar and the Municipal Corporationimplement and execute the order of this Court within eightweeks and report compliance.”12/19 WP 19 25.odt(q)In the meantime, even review applications were filed bydifferent petitioners regarding the original order passed in Writ Petition No.9013/2018 and connected matters. By the order dated 13.12.2023, eventhe review applications were dismissed.(r)This petition, with the aforementioned prayers was filed on18.12.2023. The petition together with different civil applications wasmentioned before the Court on 04.01.2024.(s)The petition then appeared before the Court on 19.01.2024 andthe notices were directed to be issued keeping open the aspect ofmaintainability of the petition.4.After the pleadings are completed, with the consent of both the sides,the petition is taken up for final adjudication.5.Mr. Thombre, learned advocate for the petitioners vehementlysubmitted that the Supreme Court, in its first order, had expressed andclarified that the APMC could file application for change of the layout planor for construction of shops in areas where such shops are permitted to beconstructed and expected consideration of such application if it was so filed,as expeditiously as possible. He would submit that even the APMC waspermitted to use the open plot in accordance with law. He would submitthat pursuant to such observations, the steps were taken by the APMC. Thelayout was changed. The portion covered by the petitioners’ shops inquestion was substituted by earmarking the open space elsewhere, which ispermissible in law and even UDCPR allow such change. The MunicipalCorporation granted permission for such change.6.He would submit that, it is a matter of demolition of shops, stated tohave been constructed over space earmarked as an open space of the APMC,but the change was permissible and in stead of demolition, the portioncovered by the shops has now been shown in the portion where the13/19 WP 19 25.odtconstruction is permitted and the requisite open space has been carved outand earmarked distinctly. The purport of clarification of the Supreme Courtwas to save the cost of the construction and was aimed at ensuring thatthere is a layout with sufficient open space.7.Mr. Thombre would submit that the petitioners have invested hugemoney and have been using the shops for decades and it would cause gravehardship if, still, the shops are demolished and hence petitioners are comingwith aforementioned prayers bona fide.8.Mr. Dhorde, the learned Senior Advocate for the APMC submits thatindeed, requisite change in the layout was proposed, which is permissibleunder the UDCPR. The change has been permitted by the MunicipalCorporation.9.Mr. Hon, learned Senior Advocate for the Municipal Corporationreferring to the affidavit in reply filed by extant Commissioner would submitthat the revised plan submitted by the APMC has already been sanctioned on13.03.2024. The APMC has also submitted application for regularization ofthe construction of the shops by its application dated 29.03.2024. Hispredecessor even provisionally regularized the construction, expresslymentioning that it would be subject to the final outcome of the proceedingspending before the High Court. No final permission for regularization hasbeen issued.10.Mr. Hon would then submit that the original layout plan that wassanctioned in the year 2001 was merely a tentative plan. The MunicipalCorporation, being a planning authority, has power to revise the layoutplan. Since it was not final, it has been acting fairly and has no intention todefy the orders of this Court. There was no political pressure and theMunicipal Corporation would act as per the directions of this Court.14/19 WP 19 25.odt11.Mr. Thigale-Naik, the learned advocate for respondent nos.5 and 6, byreferring to the affidavit of respondent no.5 and after narrating theaforementioned events, would take strong exception to the stand, not onlyon behalf of the shop owners, but even that of the APMC and the MunicipalCorporation. He would condemn the stand of these statutory bodies andtheir endeavour to some how protect the petitioners’ shops, even if that is indefiance of the directions of this Court, issued time and again, andconfirmed up to the Supreme Court.12.He would submit that there was no escape from the original orderpassed by this Court, calling upon the Municipal Corporation to demolishthe shops and to report compliance. He would submit that even there is noscope for this Court to embark upon and examine the conflicting rights ofthe parties. He would submit that the division bench expressly interpretedthe clarification of the Supreme Court in its order dated 21.08.2023 and alsodiscarded the stand of the petitioners and that of the APMC in the orderdated 23.02.2024. The subsequent orders and observations of this Court, byreferring to all these aforementioned orders, not only of the previousdivision benches, but even that of the Supreme Court passed from time totime and expressly observing that irrespective of the clarification of theSupreme Court order dated 21.08.2023, there was no scope for deviationfrom the original direction for demolition of the shops constructed illegallyand contrary to the layout and the development plan.13.He would submit that the petitioners, the APMC and the MunicipalCorporation have been persistently acting in collusion in defying thedirections of this Court and are rather guilty of contempt. The statutorybodies are supposed to act fairly. If the statutory bodies are bold enough totake the law in their hands in utter disregard to the directions of this Court,not once but successively, on several occasions, not only the petition is liableto be dismissed, but even strong action needs to be initiated against theAPMC and the erring officials of the Municipal Corporation.15/19 WP 19 25.odt14.The petitioners have also filed a rejoinder in response to the standbeing taken by respondent no. 5 and 6 in their affidavit in reply. In thisrejoinder, again, the aforementioned facts have been narrated furtherattributing personal interest to respondent no. 5, alleging that he is a leaderof a political party and a businessman, who is hellbent in harassingeverybody.15.The rival submissions now fall for our consideration.16.We are of the considered view that though the learned SeniorAdvocates and the advocate for petitioners addressed us on several aspects,touching the UDCPR and the right of the planning authority to grantpermission for modification/alteration of the layout, however, we are of thefirm view that such stand of the petitioners, the APMC and the MunicipalCorporation is really out of context.17.The issue that needs to be addressed is as to if the clarificationgranted by the Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP was with a view togrant some protection to the illegally constructed shops of the petitioners,which were admittedly contrary to the sanctioned layout plan albeit, statedto be temporary.18.In our view, even this aspect is now not open for us for consideration.The order dated 08.11.2023 of the division bench of this Court, touchinginterpretation of the clarification granted by the Supreme Court and furtherobservations in paragraph Nos. 5 to 8 of the order dated 06.12.2025 are nailin the coffin. If it can be said so, these orders seal the fate of the matter. Thetwo division benches, on earlier occasions, in spite of similar stand beingtaken by the petitioners, the APMC and the Municipal Corporation, andconsidering the scope of the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, haveemphatically concluded that there was no escape from actual demolition ofthe shops. In our view, in the teeth of the earlier orders of the divisionbenches (supra), this court cannot allow any other interpretation to be16/19 WP 19 25.odtplaced on the observations of the Supreme Court. Least it can be said thatthe Supreme Court intended to save the illegally constructed shops andwished those to be saved by changing the layout. 19.As has been rightly pointed out by Mr. Thigale, there are severalorders of this Court, expecting the demolition to take place and expectingthe Municipal Corporation and the APMC to obey the directions of thisCourt, which have reached finality. Many orders passed by this Courtsubsequently, were carried to the Supreme Court but the Special LeavePetitions, were dismissed.20.Mr. Dhorde, the learned Senior Advocate addressed us by referring tothe decision in the matter of Kunhayammed and others Vs. State of Keralaand another; AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2587; to explain the doctrine ofmerger when the Supreme Court dismisses the SLPs. We are afraid, thesubmission is out of place. To repeat, the scope of the clarification issued bythe Supreme Court, in the order dated 21.08.2023, has also been gone into,considered and decided by the division benches of this Court at least twice.Therefore, even this division bench cannot legally resort to any incompatibleobservation and conclusion.21.The very fact that admittedly, the shops in question were constructedillegally, that too, on an open space from the layout, there has to be zerotolerance. The fact situation in the matter in hand is eloquent enough tobuttress a common man’s perception that irrespective of involvement of twostatutory bodies, the citizens, like the petitioners, who are all businessmencan delay demolition of unauthorized and illegal construction, in spite ofrepeated directions of the High Court as confirmed up to the SupremeCourt. In our considered view, the fate of the society in the rule of lawwould stand reinforced only if the demolition take place as ordered by thisCourt.17/19 WP 19 25.odt22.In the light of above, we see no substance in the petition except that itis yet another attempt to protract actual demolition of the petitioners’ shops.23.The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. OneLakh only).24.Pending applications are disposed of.25.Rule is discharged. ( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)26.After pronouncement of the judgment, the learned advocate for thepetitioners submits that the statement made on behalf of the MunicipalCorporation by the learned advocate on 24.04.2025, may be continued.27.The learned advocate Mr. Thigle for respondent nos. 5 and 6 opposesthe request and adverts our attention to the first order passed on 07.03.2025and the last order before the matter was reserved for judgment that is on23.04.2025.28.We have considered the request and perused the papers.29.Indeed, on 07.03.2025, the learned Senior Advocate for the MunicipalCorporation made a statement that the status quo, as on that date, would bemaintained till the next date that was 13.03.2025.30.However, after we closed the arguments and reserved the matter forpassing final judgment on 24.04.2025, though the learned Senior Advocatereiterated the statement regarding maintaining the status quo, it wasexpressly observed in paragraph no. 5, that it was a statement of the learnedSenior Advocate on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, but with aclarification that it shall not be regarded as a stay to the execution of theoriginal order.18/19 WP 19 25.odt31.In the light of such earlier observation, the request, specificallyreferring to the statement of the learned Senior Advocate to maintain statusquo be a part of this order, is rejected. ( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)mkd19/19