Bombay High Court
Anil S/O Umrao Gote Alias Anil Anna Gote vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 24 December, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
9993-25-WP.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.9993 OF 2025
Shri Anil S/o. Umrao Gote @
Anil Anna Gote,
Age: 76 years, Occu.: Agriculture & Social Work,
R/o. House No.1321, Lane No.4, Dhule,
Tq. and District Dhule - 424001 ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
4. The Secretary
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
5. The Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik.
6. The Collector, Dhule,
District Dhule.
7. The Superintendent of Police,
Dhule, District Dhule.
8. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Public Works Department, Dhule,
District Dhule.
9993-25-WP.odt
{2}
9. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department, Dhule
District Dhule.
10. The Dhule Municipal Corporation,
Dhule, District Dhule
Through its Commissioner. ... Respondents
......
Mr. Anil Umrao Gote, Petitioner-in-person present
Mr. A.B. Girase, Government Pleader for Respondents No.1 to 9
Mr. Sanjeev B. Deshpande, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Amol S. Sawant,
Advocate for Respondent No.10
......
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 18 DECEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 24 DECEMBER, 2025
ORDER [Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.] :-
1. We have heard the writ petition at length and the matter was
reserved for judgment. Upon further consideration, and having regard
to the nature of the controversy, we are satisfied that the appropriate
course is not to finally dispose of the petition at this stage, but to issue
interim directions in aid of a continuing mandamus, appoint an
independent authority to verify disputed and technical aspects, and
retain seisin of the proceedings so that the final relief, if any, is
calibrated on verified material.
2. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution raising a challenge to the erection of a
9993-25-WP.odt
{3}
full-length statue of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj along with a platform,
allied civil works and "beautification" at Manohar Talkies Chowk,
Dhule.
3. The case as pleaded is that, (i) the work is being executed
on/within the road and in the middle of a heavy-traffic junction,
thereby endangering public safety; (ii) permissions were sought and
granted with reference to incorrect survey numbers, whereas the
construction is being undertaken on a different survey number; (iii) the
work is not a mere restoration of an old half-statue but is a
new/modified installation of a different statue with new structural
elements; (iv) the work violates the Government Resolution dated
02.05.2017 laying down "Statue Policy" guidelines, particularly
condition no.9 (traffic obstruction), condition no.17 (obedience to
Supreme Court directions), and condition no.21 (bar on a new statue
within 2 km of an existing statue of the same personality); and (v)
mandatory permissions under the planning and municipal law
framework have not been obtained. The petitioner also assails the
tendering process, alleging that the work order was awarded despite
only two bids and contrary to norms requiring wider competition.
4. The respondents, including the Municipal Corporation and the
State/Collectorate, oppose the petition on the ground of maintainability
9993-25-WP.odt
{4}
and on merits. On maintainability, it is asserted that the petitioner has
already instituted Regular Civil Suit No.189 of 2020 (as stated in the
record placed before us) challenging the work order and the
construction; an application for interim relief has been rejected and an
appeal is pending; therefore the writ petition is an abuse of process and
forum shopping. On merits, the Municipal Corporation asserts that the
works are confined to the area where a statue and a garden have
existed since 1962; the work is being carried out at the same location
and does not alter the existing alignment/width of the road; adequate
carriageway remains; a pedestrian passage is provided under the
platform; and the Superintendent of Police has opined that there will be
no obstruction or hindrance to traffic movement. The Corporation also
explains that during hearing, because certain documents referred to
different survey numbers, this Court directed an additional affidavit and
accordingly an additional affidavit dated 10 December 2025 was filed
stating that the erection is being carried out on City Survey No.3287
(and not Final Plot No.87 as earlier suggested).
5. On tendering, the Municipal Corporation relies on a Government
circular dated 29 January 2019 which, according to the respondents,
permits opening of the financial bid even when two bidders participate
in the first call, and submits that the Standing Committee approved the
9993-25-WP.odt
{5}
award and the lowest bidder was selected; consequently, work order
was issued in favour of the contractor. The State respondents, including
the Collector who chairs the District Level Statue Committee, submit
that the proposal was scrutinized in accordance with the Government
Resolution dated 2 May 2017; a meeting/inspection took place on 29
February 2024; the Committee granted permission on 2 March 2024
subject to compliance with the GR conditions; and the Superintendent
of Police reported that the erection would not obstruct traffic.
6. The first question is whether the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed solely because a civil suit is pending and interim relief has
been refused. It is settled that the existence of an alternate remedy is
not an absolute bar to jurisdiction under Article 226; it is a rule of
prudence. Where the dispute is purely private, turning on title and
possession, and where disputed questions of fact predominate, a writ
court ordinarily declines interference. But where the complaint is that
public authorities are acting in breach of statutory obligations, in
disregard of binding directions of the Supreme Court, or in a manner
that jeopardises public safety and public rights in roads and streets, the
public law element is not extinguished by the pendency of a civil suit.
Here, even on the respondents' case, the work concerns a major public
junction and the extent to which the road and traffic safety are
9993-25-WP.odt
{6}
impacted. The petitioner's grievance, therefore, cannot be confined to a
private lis; it implicates the public's right to safe passage and the State's
duty to ensure that public roads are not compromised by structures
impermissible in law.
7. At the same time, the respondents' objection is not without
substance to the limited extent that this Court must be careful not to
return findings on private rights or title/possession which are directly in
issue before the civil court. We therefore make it explicit at the outset
that we are not adjudicating upon any question of ownership or private
civil rights; nor are we examining the correctness of the civil court's
order refusing interim relief. Our scrutiny is confined to public law
compliance: (i) whether the statutory/planning permissions and policy
conditions applicable to erection of statues and allied civil works have
been complied with, (ii) whether the work violates binding Supreme
Court directions concerning structures/statues on public roads and
public utility spaces, and (iii) whether public safety, especially traffic
safety, is adequately protected.
8. The second question concerns the governing legal framework.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in proceedings arising from Union of India
v. State of Gujarat and connected matters [Special Leave to appeal
No.8519/2016], has issued directions restraining grant of permission
9993-25-WP.odt
{7}
for installation of statues or construction of structures in public roads,
pavements, sideways and other public utility places, subject to limited
exceptions for public utility facilities. These directions bind all
authorities under Article 141 of Constitution of India. It is also relevant
to note that the Supreme Court's approach in this line of cases has been
driven by the need to preserve public streets and public spaces for their
primary purpose, namely ensuring their safe and unobstructed use by
the public, and to prevent administrative authorities from diluting this
imperative through ad hoc permissions.
9. Pursuant to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions, the State of
Maharashtra has framed a "Statue Policy" by Government Resolution
dated 02.05.2017 containing multiple conditions, including (as pleaded
by both sides and reflected in the record) condition no.9 on traffic
obstruction, condition no.17 on strict adherence to Supreme Court
directions, and condition no.21 restricting installation of a new statue
within 2 kilometers of an existing statue of the same personality. The
contemporaneous public reporting of the policy also records the 2-km
restriction and the emphasis on traffic impact and local objections.
Additionally, a corrigendum/"Shuddhipatrak" dated 06.05.2017
amending guideline 6 requires, inter alia, a police no-objection and an
exercise to ascertain that there is no local opposition and that law and
order concerns will not arise.
9993-25-WP.odt
{8}
10. The third question is whether the work is to be treated as mere
repair/restoration of an existing statue (and its precincts) or as erection
of a "new statue" and new structure. The petitioner's case is that an old
half-statue has existed for decades; the present work is a full-length
standing statue with modifications and new platform/foundation;
therefore, in substance, it is a new statue installation that triggers full
compliance with the 2017 policy including the 2-km restriction. The
respondents contend that the work is being carried out "at the same
location where the statue and garden have existed since 1962" and that
it does not alter the road alignment/width.
11. We are of the view that where an existing structure is replaced
by a materially different installation, in the present case the
replacement of an old half statue with a full length standing statue
along with a new platform and civil works, the characterization cannot
be decided merely by labels such as "beautification" or "renovation".
The substance of what is being created matters, particularly when the
governing policy is intended to prevent precisely such accretions on or
near roads that may impair safety or trigger public disorder. It is also
significant that the petitioner asserts that multiple full-size statues of
the same personality exist within a 2 km radius, thereby attracting
condition no.21; the respondents have not placed on record, in a
9993-25-WP.odt
{9}
manner that conclusively answers this issue, a verified distance survey
demonstrating compliance.
12. The fourth question, and a central one, is the location and its
relationship to the road. The petitioner alleges that the foundation/base
is being erected exactly in the centre of the road and that heavy traffic
and residential density will lead to congestion and accidents; it is also
alleged that no proper design/planning exercise has been undertaken
and that the guidelines of the Indian Road Congress have not been
followed. The respondents deny any reduction of carriageway and
assert that the relevant road widths are substantially higher (14.5
meters to 15 meters on the Mumbai-Agra side and 12.5 to 14 meters on
the Malegaon-Barapathar/Gautam Road side), relying on
communications from the City Survey Officer, the PWD and the Town
Planning Department, and stating that the work is within the relevant
survey boundaries without affecting traffic flow.
13. In ordinary circumstances, a writ court may decide such issues
on the basis of official maps and affidavits. However, in this case, the
record itself discloses that "certain documents mentioned different
survey numbers" and only after the Court's intervention was an
additional affidavit filed clarifying that the erection is being carried out
on City Survey No.3287. When a project in a sensitive public space
9993-25-WP.odt
{10}
proceeds on the strength of permissions and communications that are
inconsistent on basic particulars such as the survey number/location,
the Court cannot treat the matter as one fit for final adjudication merely
on competing affidavits. The risk is not only of factual error but of
irreversible public harm if the work ultimately is found to violate
binding norms.
14. The petitioner also contends that construction permissions under
planning and municipal law have not been taken and specifically refers
to sections 44, 45, 58 and 59 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act, 1966, and the relevant provisions under the municipal
law framework, in support of the submission that development
permission/building permission processes were bypassed. The
respondents' answer, in substance, is that the District Level Statue
Committee's permission was granted subject to compliance with the GR
dated 2 May 2017, and that architectural plans/3D format proposals
were placed before the competent municipal officers.
15. These rival assertions again raise mixed questions of law and
fact: what precise works are being undertaken on the ground; whether
they constitute "development" requiring permissions under the planning
statute and regulations; whether the necessary competent authority
permissions exist in a form legally sustainable; and whether the GR
9993-25-WP.odt
{11}
process can operate in substitution of statutory planning permissions.
The petitioner's complaint that "no application has been submitted" and
"there is absolutely no construction map or permission orders" is met by
the respondents' assertion that approved architectural plans exist and
were produced. On the present material, we do not consider it safe to
conclusively rule one way or the other without an independent
verification of the record and the site.
16. We must now address the controlling principle flowing from the
Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions. The Supreme Court has directed
that henceforth State Governments shall not grant permission for
installation of any statue or construction of any structure in public
roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places, subject to
limited exceptions for public utility facilities. The policy of the State of
Maharashtra must be read and implemented in harmony with these
directions and cannot be deployed to dilute them. Therefore, if the
erection is in the carriageway/road or on a median/space that functions
as part of the road in a traffic junction, the mere fact that a District
Committee or local body has granted approval cannot immunize the
project from judicial scrutiny.
17. It is in this context that condition no.9 (traffic obstruction),
condition no.17 (obedience to Supreme Court directions) and condition
9993-25-WP.odt
{12}
no.21 (2-km restriction) assume particular importance. These
conditions are not ornamental. They embody a constitutional discipline:
commemoration and public symbolism must be pursued without
compromising legality, safety, and the shared civic resource of public
streets. The corrigendum dated 06.05.2017, which stresses law-and-
order evaluation, police no-objection, and ascertainment of local
opposition, reinforces that these projects are potential flash-points, and
therefore, demand heightened procedural rigor.
18. We are also mindful of the respondents' submission that the
Superintendent of Police has opined that the erection will not obstruct
traffic and that the Committee has scrutinized the proposal. Police
inputs are relevant; they are not determinative. Traffic safety and road
engineering issues, especially in a heavy-traffic junction, require an
evidence-based and technically coherent appraisal, not merely a general
"no objection". Equally, the petitioner's allegation of danger cannot be
accepted as self-proving. What is required is an independent, credible,
and verifiable assessment that addresses: the precise footprint of the
structure, distances from kerbs and lanes, sight-distance and turning
radii at the junction, pedestrian flow, visibility and distraction risk, and
whether any portion lies within the functional road space.
9993-25-WP.odt
{13}
19. The petitioner also challenges the tendering process. The
respondents have answered this by relying on a circular dated
29.01.2019 and by stating that if only two bidders apply in the first call,
the financial bid may be opened and further actions taken; the Standing
Committee approved and the lowest bidder was chosen. In our view,
tendering issues, though not irrelevant, are not the decisive axis of the
present writ because the principal public law concern is whether the
work itself can lawfully proceed at the chosen site consistent with
binding Supreme Court directions, the State policy, and public safety.
Nevertheless, since the petitioner has raised it, the record relating to
tender conditions, eligibility, and reliance on the 29 January 2019
circular must be available for scrutiny, and the independent authority
we appoint will be at liberty to note any apparent inconsistency that
bears upon legality, though the Court will decide later whether any
tender irregularity warrants further relief.
20. At this stage, we consider it necessary to explain why we are
adopting the course of keeping the petition pending. The record reveals
shifting particulars regarding survey numbers, disputed assertions on
whether the construction is at the centre of the road, contested road
widths, and an unresolved factual controversy on whether the 2-km
restriction is violated due to existing statues within the radius. These
9993-25-WP.odt
{14}
questions cannot be responsibly decided by a constitutional court on
affidavits alone when the consequence may be either (i) permitting an
unsafe/impermissible structure to become fait accompli, or (ii) halting a
public project without a verified basis. The Supreme Court has, in
appropriate cases, approved the technique of continuing mandamus,
where the Court retains control to ensure compliance with law and
policy before final directions are issued. This is particularly warranted
where public safety and irreversible public works are involved.
21. We are also satisfied, for reasons we now record, that an
assessment by only the same administrative set-up that granted the
approvals will not sufficiently address the deficit of public confidence
arising from inconsistencies in location particulars. In such
circumstances, constitutional courts have, with restraint, appointed
independent authorities to verify facts and compliance, without
substituting those authorities for statutory decision-makers. This
approach is corrective, not intrusive. It is intended to ensure that the
final decision of the Court is anchored in verified material and that any
further administrative action is demonstrably compliant with binding
norms.
22. Accordingly, we appoint a retired District Judge, as an
Independent Commissioner for the limited purpose of fact-finding and
9993-25-WP.odt
{15}
compliance verification. The Commissioner shall not adjudicate rights
and shall not function as a substitute for the statutory authorities; the
role is to assist the Court in arriving at a lawful and safe outcome. The
Commissioner shall be at liberty to constitute a committee of experts
from the field while carrying out the directions issued in the present
order.
23. The Commissioner's mandate shall be as follows:-
(i) The Commissioner shall ascertain, on the basis of site
inspection and authenticated revenue/municipal
records, the exact location of the works, including the
correct survey number(s), CTS number(s), plot
boundaries, and the relationship of the
platform/foundation to the carriageway, median (if
any), footpaths, and junction geometry, especially in
light of the additional affidavit stating City Survey
No.3287.
(ii) The Commissioner shall verify the nature and extent
of the structure being erected, whether it is a mere
restoration of an existing statue or, in substance, a
new statue installation with new civil works, and
record reasons with reference to the works actually
undertaken.
(iii) The Commissioner shall verify compliance with the
Government Resolution dated 02.05.2017, including
the conditions pleaded before us such as condition
no.9, condition no.17 and condition no.21, and also
the requirement reflected in the corrigendum dated 6
May 2017 regarding police no-objection and
ascertainment of local opposition and law-and-order
implications.
9993-25-WP.odt
{16}
(iv) The Commissioner shall specifically measure and
report whether there exists any other statue of
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj within a two kilometer
radius and, if so, the precise aerial and road distance,
the date/identity of such statue(s) to the extent
ascertainable from records, and whether the policy
bar is attracted.
(v) The Commissioner shall assess traffic feasibility and
public safety at the site, and for this purpose may take
assistance of a competent traffic engineer/road safety
expert (including from the PWD/NHAI/Urban
Development bodies) and shall address sight-distance,
turning movements, pedestrian safety, and accident
risk in a heavy-traffic residential junction, in the
context of the Supreme Court's binding restraint on
statues/structures on public roads and public utility
places.
(vi) The Commissioner shall verify whether the requisite
planning/building permissions exist for the civil
works, and if they do, identify the competent
authority, the statutory provision invoked, and the
approvals granted; and if they do not, record that
deficiency with reference to the petitioner's specific
contention that permissions under the planning
statute were not obtained.
9993-25-WP.odt
{17}
(vii) The Commissioner shall grant a reasonable
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Municipal
Corporation, the Collector/Statue Committee
representatives, and the police/PWD/town planning
authorities, and may also invite written
representations from residents/shopkeepers in the
immediate vicinity, since the 2017 policy framework
emphasises ascertainment of local opposition and law-
and-order considerations.
24. The Commissioner shall be entitled to call for the complete
record from all concerned departments, including but not limited to: the
Municipal resolutions (including the 28.04.2022 resolution referred to
by the Collector), administrative sanction dated 25.05.2023, technical
sanction dated 26.05.2023, the tender notice dated 31.05.2023, the
Standing Committee resolution dated 19.10.2023, the work order dated
05.07.2024, the PWD communications including the no-objection dated
20.02.2024 referred to by the petitioner, the District Level Statue
Committee permission dated 02.03.2024, the Superintendent of Police
report, the additional affidavit dated 10.12.2025, and all maps/DP
extracts relied upon for road widths.
25. Having regard to the possibility of fait accompli and to preserve
the subject matter, we direct that with immediate effect all
construction/erection/civil works at the site shall remain stayed until
9993-25-WP.odt
{18}
further orders. This is necessary not as a final pronouncement against
the project but to ensure that compliance with binding norms is
meaningfully examined before irreversible steps are taken. We clarify
that routine safety measures at the site, including barricading, signage,
and necessary steps to prevent accidents, may be undertaken under the
supervision of the local police and traffic department.
26. The Commissioner shall submit a report to this Court within
eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order of appointment. The
report shall annex: (i) authenticated site plan(s) showing measurements
and the relationship to the road; (ii) a tabulated compliance matrix
against the relevant policy conditions; (iii) a distance verification note
on the two kilometer condition; (iv) a traffic feasibility/safety note with
reasons; (v) a list of documents relied upon; and (vi) a brief record of
submissions of the parties and local stakeholders.
27. On submission of the report, the Registry shall list the matter for
directions. Parties shall be at liberty to file objections/responses to the
report within two weeks thereafter. After considering the report and the
responses, the Court will pass appropriate further orders, including
whether (i) the work can proceed at the same site with or without
modifications, (ii) relocation is required to comply with binding norms,
(iii) further statutory permissions are to be obtained before any work
9993-25-WP.odt
{19}
resumes, or (iv) any other corrective directions are warranted to
preserve public safety and the State policy.
28. We consider it necessary to place on record that the Court is
fully cognizant of the reverence attached to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj
and the legitimate civic desire to commemorate him. The constitutional
question before us is not about commemoration but about legality,
safety, and governance under law. Public roads are shared civic
infrastructure; the rule of law requires that even projects with wide
public support must comply with binding Supreme Court directions and
the State's own policy designed to avoid obstruction, hazard, and
disorder.
29. For abundant clarity, we reiterate that nothing in this order shall
be construed as an expression on the merits of the pending civil
proceedings or the correctness of orders passed therein. All civil rights
contentions remain open to be adjudicated by the competent civil court.
Our directions are confined to public law compliance, public safety, and
adherence to binding judicial directions and State policy.
30. In view of the above, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
[I] We direct that the following operative order shall govern the writ petition at this stage, the petition being retained on the board as a continuing mandamus.
9993-25-WP.odt {20} [II] Rule. Rule is made returnable on a date to be fixed by the Registry after submission of the report directed hereunder.
[III] Having regard to the disputed and technical nature of the issues, including those affecting public safety and compliance with binding directions of the Supreme Court and the Government Resolution dated 2 May 2017, and further having regard to the inconsistencies on record in regard to survey/plot particulars and the precise footprint of the works vis-à-vis the carriageway, we appoint a retired District Judge of this Court, Shri D.D. Deshmukh as an Independent Commissioner for the purposes set out in this order.
[IV] The Independent Commissioner shall function strictly as a fact-finding and compliance-verification authority to assist this Court. The Commissioner shall not adjudicate civil rights or title and shall not act as a substitute for statutory authorities. The Commissioner's mandate shall include the following:
(a) ascertain the exact location of the works with reference to authenticated revenue/municipal records, including the correct City Survey/CTS number(s) and boundaries;
(b) verify, by site inspection and measurement, whether any portion of the platform/foundation/ancillary works lies within or encroaches upon the functional road space, including the carriageway/median/turning radii at the junction;
9993-25-WP.odt {21}
(c) verify the nature and extent of the works and whether, in substance, the installation amounts to erection of a new statue/structure as opposed to mere maintenance;
(d) verify compliance with the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2017 including, inter alia, the conditions relating to traffic obstruction/safety, obedience to Supreme Court directions, and the restriction on installation of a new statue within 2 kilometres of an existing statue of the same personality;
(e) specifically ascertain, by a verifiable distance survey (aerial and road distance), whether any existing full-sized statue of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj lies within 2 kilometres of the site and record the basis thereof;
(f) verify whether the requisite statutory permissions under the applicable planning/municipal framework for the civil works exist, identify the competent authority and the approvals granted, or record deficiencies, if any;
(g) undertake a traffic feasibility and road safety appraisal with reasons, and for that purpose the Commissioner shall be at liberty to take assistance of a competent traffic engineer/road safety expert and obtain inputs from the Traffic Police, PWD and Town Planning authorities; and
(h) invite and consider written objections/representations from persons likely to be affected in the immediate vicinity, insofar as the State policy contemplates ascertainment of objections and law-and-order considerations.
9993-25-WP.odt {22} [V] The Independent Commissioner shall be entitled to call for the complete record from the Municipal Corporation, the District Level Statue Committee, the Collectorate, the Police authorities, the PWD and the Town Planning Authority, including all sanctions, permissions, maps, plans and correspondence relevant to the proposal and the execution of work, and shall be entitled to conduct such number of site inspections as may be necessary. The parties shall extend full cooperation and shall not obstruct the Commissioner's inspection, measurement or access to records.
[VI] The Independent Commissioner shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Municipal Corporation, the State authorities, the District Level Statue Committee representatives, and such other stakeholders as the Commissioner may consider necessary for an effective fact-finding exercise.
[VII] The Independent Commissioner shall submit a report to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of this order together with annexures consisting of (i) authenticated site sketches/maps indicating measurements and boundaries, (ii) a tabulated compliance note against the relevant policy conditions, (iii) a distance verification note for the 2 km requirement with methodology, (iv) a traffic feasibility and safety note with reasons, and (v) a list of documents relied upon and submissions received.
9993-25-WP.odt {23} [VIII] Until further orders, there shall be stay to all construction/erection/civil works at the site in question, including erection of the statue, construction of platform, beautification and all allied works, except that the Municipal Corporation and Police authorities may take strictly necessary safety measures such as barricading, reflective signage, lighting and traffic management to prevent accidents and ensure public safety, without altering the status quo of the work.
[IX] Upon submission of the report, the Registry shall place the matter before this Court for directions.
[X] Costs and remuneration: The fees and expenses of the Independent Commissioner, including reasonable expenses towards site visits and engagement of a traffic/road safety expert, shall be paid by the Dhule Municipal Corporation, subject to further orders as to costs after final disposal. The Independent Commissioner may submit a statement of fees & expenses to the Commissioner, Dhule Muncipal Corporation and upon receipt of the same disbursement shall be made accordingly at earliest.
[XI] We clarify that (i) we have not adjudicated upon any private civil rights or title, (ii) nothing stated in this order shall influence the pending civil proceedings or the appeal arising therefrom, and (iii) all such proceedings shall be decided on their own merits.
9993-25-WP.odt {24} [XII] The writ petition shall remain pending. Interim directions contained herein shall continue to operate until further orders. No order as to costs at this stage.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]
JUDGE JUDGE
S P Rane