Judgment :- Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Advocates on both sides. 2. The applicant wants that crime No. 3132/2005 registered against the applicant under Section 52 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (hereinafter referred to as; “the said Act”) be quashed and set aside. Few facts necessary for disposal of this application are as follows: 3. The applicant runs business of hotel, by name Golden Spoon Bar and Restaurant, situated at Abhyankar Road, Sitabuldi, Nagpur. On 15/10/2005 Police Sub Inspector Laxman Rai filed F. I. R. with Sitabuldi Police Station, Nagpur under Section 52 of the said Act. A copy of the F.I.R. in question was tendered by the learned Advocate for the applicant for perusal of the Court. A perusal of the F.I.R. goes to show that thepolice officer felt concerned about the traffic congestion near about the hotel premises and there is reference to the notice dated 06/6/2002 issued by the Nagpur Improvement Trust. According to P.S.I. Mr. Rai, the applicant has committed offence punishable under Section 52 of the said Act and other laws, and therefore, first information report came to be lodged. The applicant has challenged this F.I.R. by contending that the preconditions set out in Section 53 of the said Act have not been complied with and in any case the police sub inspector has no authority to lodge F.I.R. for the alleged violation of the provisions of the said Act. 4. Bare perusal of provision of Section 53 of the M.R.T.P. Act, would go to show that if the development is carried out in violation of the provisions of Section 52 of the said Act, the Planning Authority may serve on the owner a notice requiring him to comply with certain things as set out in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 53 of the said Act. Sub-section (6) of Section 53 indicates about the action to be taken by the Planning Authority for a situation which may arise as set out in sub-section (6). A reading of the provisions of Section 53 would go to show that the notice is required to be issued. Sub-section (6) of Section 53 indicates about the action to be taken by the Planning Authority for a situation which may arise as set out in sub-section (6). A reading of the provisions of Section 53 would go to show that the notice is required to be issued. Thereafter, if certain development may take place as set out in Section 53 and if ultimately the person is said to have violated the provisions of the said Act and have not complied with the said notice, then prosecution could be launched in accordance with the provisions of Section 52 of the said Act. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Voditel submitted before this Court that respondents have not able to make out the case that preconditions set out in sub-section (6) of Section 53 of the said Act have been fulfilled. According to him, in order to launch the prosecution, it was necessary for the Planning Authority to give notice and if the applicant would have failed to comply with the said notice, then it was open for the Planning Authority to initiate the prosecution. Learned Advocate Mr. Voditel submitted that the police department have no right to initiate prosecution under Section 52 of the said Act and it is privilege of the Planning Authority. Learned Advocate Mr. Voditel therefore submitted that F.I.R. lodged against the applicant should be quashed. 6. Learned A. P. P. Mrs. Khade opposed the submission of the learned Advocate for the applicant by contending that if the police department has come to know that the provisions of the said Act have been violated, they have authority to file F.I.R. and the Court ought to have take cognizance of the same. She prayed for dismissal of the application. 7. In view of the provisions of Sections 52 and 53 of the said Act and considering the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent, I am inclined to accept the argument advanced by learned Advocate Mr. Voditel appearing on behalf of the applicant. Perusal of Sections 52 and 53 of the said Act clearly indicate that these two provisions provide for a scheme for launching prosecution against a particular person who has violated the provisions of the said Act. They also go to indicate that if any prosecution is to be launched, it could be launched by the Planning Authority. 8. Perusal of Sections 52 and 53 of the said Act clearly indicate that these two provisions provide for a scheme for launching prosecution against a particular person who has violated the provisions of the said Act. They also go to indicate that if any prosecution is to be launched, it could be launched by the Planning Authority. 8. The term, “Planning Authority” has been defined in Section 2(19) of the said Act and certainly the police sub inspector Mr. Rai who was then attached to traffic department cannot fall within the ambit of term “Planning Authority”. Even otherwise, the respondents have not shown that procedure as set out in Section 53 of the said Act for the purposes of lodgment of F.I.R. under the said Act has been complied with. In substance, the prosecution launched against the applicant by the police officer cannot sustain. The F.I.R. filed by the police sub inspector Mr. Rai will have to be quashed. Consequently, the action initiated against the applicant will have to be quashed. 9. In the result, First Information Report No. 3132 of 2005 dated 15/10/2005 filed by Police Sub Inspector Mr. Laxman Rai, Sitabuldi Police Station, Nagpur is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the action initiated against the applicant is hereby quashed. 10. Rule is made absolute accordingly.