-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 937 OF 2010 Satish Jamnadas Dattani and others ...Petitioners versus The Municipal Corpn. Of Gr. Mumbai and others ...Respondents Mr. D.H. Mehta with Mr. D. Mehta, instructed by D.M. Legal Associates for the petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. P.M. Shah, for respondent Nos. 5 to 15. Ms. K.R. Punjabi for the respondent-Corporation. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR , JJ. DATE: DECEMBER 21, 2010. P.C. Petitioner No. 5 is the owner of the premises. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though the Corporation has already issued notice under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, the Corporation is not taking any action. The shop owners have also filed another writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1906 of 2010. The said writ petition has been withdrawn today with a view to make representation in view of the subsequent development. So far as the grievance of the petitioners is concerned, it is true that the Corporation is required to act in accordance with law. The Corporation may act accordingly subject to the direction given in Writ Petition No. 1906 of -2- 2010. If the notice issued under Section 354 of the Act is maintainable after considering the representation of the shop owners, the Corporation shall forthwith act in accordance with law as per the decision which may be taken in connection with the representation of the shop owners. We may clarify that it is not obligatory for the Corporation to give any personal hearing to the petitioners as it is not the requirement of law. W.P. is accordingly disposed of. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.