wp/1030/10 1 SSK/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1030 OF 2010 St. Antohony’s Homes Co-operative Society Ltd. ....Petitioners Versus The Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. Denzil D’Mello, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shobha Ajithkumar, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Amol K. Tembe, Advocate for respondent no.6. Mr. S. P. Thorat, Advocate for respondent no.10. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED : 4th OCTOBER, 2010. P.C.: The petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society duly registered under the Co-operative Society’s Act, 1925. In short the grievance of the petitioners is that 6th respondent- Church has constructed toilets, walls of the cemetery with niches in the Society’s premises which are not as per the DC regulations. 2. The petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1930 of 2009 making the same grievance. That petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court presided over by the then Chief Justice Shri Swatantar Kumar by directing the Corporation to treat the writ petition alongwith its annexures as representation and after hearing the petitioners, pass an appropriate order in the matter expeditiously. wp/1030/10 2 SSK/ 3. We are informed that accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner, M/West Ward, Mumbai – 400 071 treated the earlier writ petition as representation, heard all the parties including respondent no.6 and passed order dated 30th December, 2009. The Assistant Commissioner directed respondent no.6 – Church and MHADA Section Engineer to approach the petitioners and get their NOC and thereafter to approach Executive Engineer (Building Proposal) Eastern Suburbs through licensed architect and get the unauthorized work regularized within one month. The Assistant Commissioner observed that if this course of action was not followed, his Office will demolish the unauthorized work at the risk and cost of respondent no.6-Church and MHADA. Admittedly, respondent no.6 did not abide by this order. That is the reason, why the petitioners have filed the present petition. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. On the last occasion i.e. 20th September, 2010, we had recorded the statement made by the counsel for the 6th respondent - Church that the 6th respondent will make an application for no objection certificate to the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners-society made a statement that the said application will be considered in its proper perspective and in accordance with law. We are informed by the counsel for the petitioners that the 6th respondent did not approach the petitioners. Counsel for the 6th respondent has tendered in the Court, a representation dated 29th September, 2010 which according to him was submitted to the petitioners on 3rd October, 2010 i.e. last evening. wp/1030/10 3 SSK/ We deprecate this conduct of the 6th respondent. The statement of the counsel for 6th respondent was recorded as far back on 20th September, 2010. The 6th respondent did not abide by the said statement. We take serious note of the fact that the 6th respondent chose to approach the petitioners only a day before the matter appeared on board i.e. on 3rd October, 2010. Therefore, it is clear that the 6th respondent never wanted to abide by the statement made in this Court. Prima-facie, it appears to us that the structure is unauthorized and not as per the DC regulations. The conduct of the 6th respondent in avoiding to approach the petitioners itself suggests this. 5. We, therefore, direct respondent nos. 1 to 5 to take steps in accordance with law. That would obviously mean demolishing the structure, which according to them is unauthorised. We expect the Corporation to take steps immediately. The petition is accordingly disposed of. (R. V. MORE, J.) (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)