*1* 58wp9547o18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9547 OF 2018 SURESHCHANDRA SHANKARLAL LALWANI AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ... Shri Anand P. Bhandari h/f Shri Sancheti Rahul R., Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri Sarang P. Joshi, AGP for the Respondents/ State. Shri Hange Sandesh V., advocate for respondent No.2. ... CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT & SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ. DATE : 04 March 2026 P. C. :- 1. The petitioners are challenging the draft development plan published by the President, Municipal Council, Jamner, in Government Gazette dated 16.07.2009. The petitioners have filed objection on 11.09.2009. On 08.11.2012, the Municipal Council passed the resolution stating that no acquisition is required. The petitioners thereafter, approached this Court by filing a petition on 10.08.2018 challenging the draft development plan and also for implementation of the resolution 2026:BHC-AUG:9304-DB *2* 58wp9547o18 passed by the Municipal Council. However, pending all these, on 18.05.2012, the State Government sanctioned the draft development plan. 2. The learned advocate Shri Bhandari appearing for the petitioners vehemently argued that the draft development plan was sanctioned by the President of Municipal Council, who does not have any authority under the Act. It ought to have been sanctioned by the Director of Town Planning under the Act. Everything done pursuant to the draft development plan should be declared illegal and same cannot be implemented. He further submits that the Municipal Council itself has passed the resolution stating that no such land is required. Therefore, it was not appropriate for the Government to approve the draft development plan. He, thus, prays for allowing the petition. 3. The learned advocate Shri Hange for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the petition by placing on record the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.2. He submits that once the development plan is now sanctioned by the Government, the petition need not be entertained as same is not maintainable before this Court. There are remedies available to the petitioners *3* 58wp9547o18 either to pray for modification of the scheme or to resort to any other remedy provided in law. 4. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties and the reply filed by respondent No.2. Since now the draft development plan has already been sanctioned by the State Government, this Court need not entertain the writ petition. It is, however, kept open for the petitioners to avail remedy available in law if so advised. By keeping above liberty open, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. kps (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.) (KISHORE C. SANT, J.)