2026:BHC-AUG:41576 903 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 167 OF 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 903 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 167 OF 2012 IN WP/6665/2010 Mohanlal Arjundas Shamnani Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Others __________________________________________________________ • Adv. R. R. Sancheti for the Petitioner • Mr. A. S. Shinde, Addl.G.P. for State • Adv. S. D. Hiwrekar for Respondent No. 5 - Absent __________________________________________________________ CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 08, 2026 ORDER : [PER VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.] 1) In the order under contempt, statement was made by Respondent No. 4 that the Revised Development Plan would be submitted to the State Government and thereafter it will be sanctioned as early as possible. 2) Learned Addl.G.P. submits that the Revised Development Plan under Section 31 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 is published on 27.09.2013. 3) As such, the order under contempt is complied with and the same stands disposed of. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE Komal Kamble Page| 1 of 1

2026:BHC-AUG:41576 903 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 167 OF 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 903 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 167 OF 2012 IN WP/6665/2010 Mohanlal Arjundas Shamnani Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Others __________________________________________________________ • Adv. R. R. Sancheti for the Petitioner • Mr. A. S. Shinde, Addl.G.P. for State • Adv. S. D. Hiwrekar for Respondent No. 5 - Absent __________________________________________________________ CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 08, 2026 ORDER : [PER VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.] 1) In the order under contempt, statement was made by Respondent No. 4 that the Revised Development Plan would be submitted to the State Government and thereafter it will be sanctioned as early as possible. 2) Learned Addl.G.P. submits that the Revised Development Plan under Section 31 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 is published on 27.09.2013. 3) As such, the order under contempt is complied with and the same stands disposed of. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE Komal Kamble Page| 1 of 1