JUDGMENT Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order dated 28.01.2011 passed by the Collector, Nagpur by which the application filed by the petitioner herein invoking section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 came to be disposed of by observing that the Offset Printing Machine, which is supposed to be used by the respondent no.3 is within 5 HP's which is the permissible limit in terms of the N.O.C. granted by the respondent no. 2 Municipal Council. 3. The issue raised in the application is whether in the residential area a N.O.C. could be granted by the respondent no.2 Municipal Council to the respondent no.3 to run an Offset Printing Machine. It appears that the respondent no.3 applied for running Offset Printing Machine in the residential premises at Warispura Ward, Tq. Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur. The Municipal Council in terms of the procedure applicable invited objections and suggestions from the members of the public on 07.07.2009 pursuant to which the petitioner herein, who is one of the neighbours, objected to the permission being granted. After considering the said objection the Municipal Council-respondent no.2 issued N.O.C. on 09.04.2010 inter alia on the terms and conditions mentioned therein, which are reproduced in the impugned order at page 19 & 20 of the paper book. There are seven conditions imposed by the respondent no.2 Municipal Council amongst which is a condition that the Offset Printing Press should be within 5 HP. Aggrieved by the said N.O.C. granted by the respondent no.2-Municipal Council the petitioner invokes section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 against the grant of the said N.O.C. In his appl ication it was the contention of the petitioner that considering the fact that the area was a residential zone such a permission could not have been granted in terms of the building bye laws which are applicable to the respondent no.2 Municipal Council. It was further the contention of the petitioner that the Offset Printing Press was having more power than the 5 HP which was prescribed and it was in fact 9.5 HP. 4. It was further the contention of the petitioner that the Offset Printing Press was having more power than the 5 HP which was prescribed and it was in fact 9.5 HP. 4. The Collector, Nagpur by the impugned order dated 28.01.2011, as mentioned herein above has disposed of the said application filed under section 308 on being satisfied with the fact that the Offset Printing Press which is sought to be installed is within 5 HP and that the respondent no.3 herein has observed the terms and conditions which are stated in the N.O.C. letter dated 09.04.2010. 5. It was sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that though the hearing was completed some time in July, 2010 and the matter was closed for orders, the order came to be passed by the Collector after a period of five months on 20.01.2011. It is further contended that the issue raised by the petitioner as to whether in the residential area an N.O.C. could be granted by respondent no.2 Municipal Council to the respondent no.3 to run Offset Printing Machine, has not been considered by the Collector. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the Building Regulations applicable in so far as the residential zone are concerned. It encompasses with it different plots in residential zone on roads more than 9 meters in gaothan and 12 meters or more in outside area. In so, far as electronics industry of assembly type, the same falls within entry no. xxxiv of the said building bye laws, the said electronic industry of assembly type is permissible subject to the following restrictions. (i) restricted on ground floor only with area not exceeding 50 sq.m. (ii) total electric power inclusive of motive power and heating load not exceeding 5 HP. (iii) number of persons employed not exceeding nine. The Offset Printing Machine is a modern innovation which is different from a conventional printing press. It is the submission of both the learned counsel for the respondent no.2-Municipal Council and the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 that the Offset Printing Press would fall within the said entry no. xxxiv of the building bye laws. The said contention is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, but he contends that the printing press is a service industry. 7. xxxiv of the building bye laws. The said contention is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, but he contends that the printing press is a service industry. 7. In my view the Printing Press which falls within the service industry would be a conventional printing press and not an Offset Printing Machine. Hence, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Council that the same falls within entry no. xxxiv has substance and would have to be accepted. In so far as the contention of the petitioner that the Offset Printing Machine which is sought to be installed by the respondent no.3 and which is part of his proposal submitted to the respondent no.2 Municipal Council being more than 9.5 HP, it is required to be noted that the N.O.C. is granted to the respondent no.3 only to install Offset Printing Machine which is of 5 HP in the maximum. As observed by the Collector in the impugned order, if the respondent no.3 is using Offset Printing Machine of more than 5 HP, it would be open for the petitioner to approach the Municipal Council in that respect and if such a complaint is made by the petitioner, it would be the statutory duty of the Municipal Council to address the same without the petitioner having to take recourse to the legal proceedings. It is made clear that the respondent no.3 would be bound by the terms of the N.O.C. including the cap of 5 HP. Lastly coming to the submission of the learned counsel that there is delay in passing the order, in my view, in the teeth of facts stated herein above the same would in my view make no material to the decision of the matter. No case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharge. Petition dismissed.