23 Wp-3539-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3539 OF 2022 Nitin Annarao Bhopale. ...Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others. ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Sarang Aradhye and Shantanu Gurav for the Petitioner. Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ. Date : December 8, 2025. P. C. : 1. We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner requested for a short accommodation. However, with the assistance of learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned AGP, we have gone through the memo of petition and annexures thereto. We are not inclined to grant any time considering that writ petition is of the year 2022. 2. Though this petition is styled as Writ Petition, the Petitioner has contended that he, being a taxpayer and concerned citizen of Solapur and having in mind the larger public interest, has no alternative but to ile the present writ petition before this Court challenging the notiication dated 2nd September 2016 issued by the Respondent No. 1 and the notiication dated 3rd December 2016 purportedly issued in Patil-SR 1 of 2 23 Wp-3539-2022.doc exercise of powers under Section 31(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. 3. We ind that the Petitioner has annexed to the writ petition, a copy of the representation preferred by the then Corporator and Leader of the Opposition of Solapur Municipal Corporation objecting to the irst notiication. On the strength of such representation, it is the petitioner who has iled the present writ petition challenging the irst notiication. 4. We ind that at no stage the Petitioner had raised any objection though he claims to be a concerned citizen. In such view of the matter, it is open for the Petitioner to seek redress of his grievance before the concerned authorities objecting to the notiications before approaching this Court. We are not inclined to entertain present petition at the instance of such Petitioner. The Petitioner has not indicated in the petition as to how the Petitioner came to know about the representation dated 13th June 2016 addressed by the then Leader of the Opposition of Solapur Municipal Corporation, copy of which is annexed at page 78 of petition. 5. Keeping all contentions open, present petition is disposed of with liberty. [Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.] [M. S. Karnik, J.] Patil-SR 2 of 2