1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.18 OF 2009 Pandurang Harishchandra Patil ..Petitioner. Vs. The Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. G.T. Kunbhe i/b Mr. R.D. Suryavanshi for the Petitioner. Ms. A.R. Joshi for the BMC. Mr. Rakesh Misar i/b S. Mahomedbhai & Co. for Respondent No.3. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. & RAJESH G. KETKAR, J. 3rd April, 2009. P.C. : 1. The relief that has been sought in these proceedings under Article 226 is for the issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Municipal Corporation to demolish a structure which is alleged to have been illegally reconstructed by the Third Respondent. The allegation is that the Third Respondent constructed the structure in question in 2004 and on the complaint made by the Petitioner the Municipal Corporation issued a notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai 2 Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 to the Third Respondent. On 31st March, 2006 the structure was alleged to have been demolished after following due process of law. The Third Respondent filed a suit before the City Civil Court in which the Motion for interim relief came to be dismissed on 30th April, 2007. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that as a matter of fact the suit has also been dismissed on 22nd January, 2009. According to the Petitioner the Third Respondent illegally reconstructed the structure which was demolished, on 16th June, 2007 and though the Petitioner had complained by his representations dated 18th June, 2007 and 23rd July, 2007 no action was initiated by the Municipal Corporation. 2. At the hearing of the Petition counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation states that the Assistant Commissioner, H West Ward shall look into the grievance that has been made by the Petitioner in these proceedings and would take necessary action in accordance with law after due notice to the Petitioner as well as to the Third Respondent. The Municipal Corporation, it is needless to add, shall give an opportunity of being heard to the affected parties. 3 In view of the statement which has been made on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, no further directions have been sought in the Petition which shall accordingly stand disposed of. DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. RAJESH G. KETKAR, J.