1 ao385-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION rpa APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 385 OF 2011 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 536 OF 2011 M/s. K.S. Chamankar .. Appellant V/s. Mumbai Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai .. Respondent ..... Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, senior counsel i/b. Mr. A.R. Shaikh for the appellant. Mrs. K.K. Soraan for respondent – BMC. ..... CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATED : MAY 4, 2011. P.C.:- Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By the impugned order, prayer for ad-interim injunction has been rejected by the trial Court. In the suit filed by the appellant, the challenge is to the notice issued under Section 55(1) of the Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act 1966 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act 1966”). There is also a challenge to the notice dated 2 ao385-11 14th February, 2011, issued by the respondent corporation. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant states that in this Appeal against ad-interim order, he is pressing for injunction only as far as notice dated 14th February, 2011 is concerned. 3. The appellant is running a Ready Mixer of Cement (R.M.C.) Plant. By notice dated 14th February, 2011, the Assistant Engineer of the respondent corporation informed that the appellant has not taken any preventive measures to abate the nuisance created by the R.M.C. Plant and, therefore, permit under Section 390 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 has been revoked. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has invited attention of the Court to a communication dated 2nd February, 2011, issued by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board recording that the said Board has issued consent letter to the respondent in respect of the appellant’s R.M.C. Plant which is valid up to 31st August, 2011. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant on instructions states that the appellant will operate the R.M.C. Plant only between 9.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. till the disposal of the Notice of Motion. 3 ao385-11 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the construction of the Plant is unauthorized and, therefore, notice has been issued under Section 55(1) of the said Act 1966. 7. I have considered the submissions. Prima facie, it appears to me that the Pollution Control Board has given consent to the running of the R.M.C. Plant which is valid up to 31st August, 2011. Though, the permit dated 1st April, 2010, allows the appellant to run the plant between 6.00 a.m. to 8 p.m., the appellant has made a statement before this Court that till the disposal of the Notice of Motion, the Plant will be operated only between 9.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. The original permit was valid till 31st March, 2012. 8. Therefore, a limited ad-interim relief deserves to be granted. 9. Hence, Appeal From Order is disposed of by passing the following order: :: O R D E R :: i. The statement of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the Ready Mixture of Cement (R.M.C.) Plant will be operated only between 9.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. till the disposal of the Notice of Motion is accepted. 4 ao385-11 ii. In view of the aforesaid statement, the respondent shall not act upon the aforesaid notice dated 14th February, 2011, till the disposal of the Notice of Motion. iii. Hearing of the Notice of Motion is expedited and the trial Court will make an endeavour to conclude the hearing on or before 16th August, 2011. iv. All contentions of the parties on merits of the Notice of motion and suit are kept open. v. Appeal From Order is disposed of with no order as to costs. vi. Civil Application No.536 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE