1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.2723 OF 2008 PETITION NO.2723 OF 2008 PETITION NO.2723 OF 2008 Shri Narottamdas Ghanashyamdas through Power of Attorney Holder Shri Ajit Sethiya : Petitioner. versus Pune Municipal Corporation Pune and others. : Respondents. Mr.A.V.Anturkar for the petitioner Mr.R.G.Ketkar for Respondent No.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & : BILAL NAZKI & : BILAL NAZKI & S.S.SHINDE, S.S.SHINDE, S.S.SHINDE, JJ., JJ., JJ., DATED DATED DATED : JUNE 12, 2008. : JUNE 12, 2008. : JUNE 12, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The case of the petitioner is that in another writ petition being Writ Petition No.5131 of 2007 the respondents had been ordered to hold an inquiry as to 2 whether certain construction has been made unauthorizedly. It was further ordered to take action in accordance with law if any construction had been made without due authorisation and permission from the concerned authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all of a sudden a notice was received by his client which is purported to have been given by the Assistant Engineer of the respondent/corporation by which he was asked to remove unauthorised construction within a period of 15 days and if he failed to do so, the municipal corporation had informed him that the construction would be demolished. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that this notice refers to earlier notice. But no notice was served upon the petitioner prior to this notice. This notice which is impugned in this petition has many blanks and does not even identify the property which was allegedly constructed without permission and which was sought to be demolished. Nowhere in the writ petition it has been stated that as to when the notice impugned was received by the petitioner and what was the mode of its receipt by him. 2. The learned counsel for the corporation submits that the so called notice impugned in this 3 petition is not at all issued by the municipal corporation and this notice has been forged in order to approach this Court for obtaining an order of injunction. There was no notice given to the petitioner either for showing cause or for demolition. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner has no cause of action. He further submits that the corporation is in the process of implementing the judgment of the Court passed in the earlier writ petition in which more than 600 people are affected. The present petitioner is one of them. 3. Since the learned counsel for the corporation has submitted that the impugned notice has not been given by the corporation, there is no cause of action for the petitioner to proceed with this petition. 4. Coming to the allegation of the learned counsel for the respondent that the notice has been manufactured and/or forged for the purpose of approaching this Court, we give liberty to the respondent to hold an inquiry, if they so choose and take any appropriate steps which may be available to them in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of accordingly. 4 [BILAL [BILAL [BILAL NAZKI, J] NAZKI, J] NAZKI, J] [S.S.SHINDE, [S.S.SHINDE, [S.S.SHINDE, J] J] J]