IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1986 OF 2007 PETITION (L) NO.1986 OF 2007 PETITION (L) NO.1986 OF 2007 Shri Shri Shri Vishnu Keshav Patel Vishnu Keshav Patel Vishnu Keshav Patel ...... Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner vs vs vs 1.1.1. Municipal Corporation of Municipal Corporation of Municipal Corporation of Greater Greater Greater Mumbai & ors Mumbai & ors Mumbai & ors ...... Respondents Respondents Respondents Mr.Diwakar Mr.Diwakar Mr.Diwakar Dwivedi for Petitioner Dwivedi for Petitioner Dwivedi for Petitioner Ms.P.A.Purandare Ms.P.A.Purandare Ms.P.A.Purandare for B.M.C. for B.M.C. for B.M.C. CORAM CORAM CORAM : SMT RANJANA DESAI AND : SMT RANJANA DESAI AND : SMT RANJANA DESAI AND DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, JJ JJ JJ DATED DATED DATED : 14th September, 2007 : 14th September, 2007 : 14th September, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1.1.1. The petitioner has challenged notice dated The petitioner has challenged notice dated The petitioner has challenged notice dated 8th 8th 8th August, 2007 issued by the 1st respondent August, 2007 issued by the 1st respondent August, 2007 issued by the 1st respondent under under under section section section 55 of the MRTP.Act, 1966 bearing 55 of the MRTP.Act, 1966 bearing 55 of the MRTP.Act, 1966 bearing No.ACKE/KEBI/MRTP-55/4711/BF/2007 No.ACKE/KEBI/MRTP-55/4711/BF/2007 No.ACKE/KEBI/MRTP-55/4711/BF/2007 alleging alleging alleging unauthorized unauthorized unauthorized construction of commercial construction of commercial construction of commercial premises premises premises admeasuring about 10’x 8’ of BM wall admeasuring about 10’x 8’ of BM wall admeasuring about 10’x 8’ of BM wall and and and partly MS Grill and AC sheet roof. partly MS Grill and AC sheet roof. partly MS Grill and AC sheet roof. 2.2.2. Admittedly, the petitioner has sent a Admittedly, the petitioner has sent a Admittedly, the petitioner has sent a reply reply reply dated 23rd August, 2007 to the dated 23rd August, 2007 to the dated 23rd August, 2007 to the respondents. respondents. respondents. Learned counsel for the Learned counsel for the Learned counsel for the respondents respondents respondents states that appropriate orders states that appropriate orders states that appropriate orders will will will be be be passed on the impugned notice within a passed on the impugned notice within a passed on the impugned notice within a period period period of four weeks and it will be of four weeks and it will be of four weeks and it will be communicated communicated communicated to the petitioner within a week to the petitioner within a week to the petitioner within a week from from from the date of the order. In view of this, the date of the order. In view of this, the date of the order. In view of this, ititit is not necessary to entertain the present is not necessary to entertain the present is not necessary to entertain the present petition. petition. petition. 3.3.3. Petition is disposed of accordingly. Petition is disposed of accordingly. Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, (Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, (Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J) (Smt.Ranjana Desai, J) J) (Smt.Ranjana Desai, J) J) (Smt.Ranjana Desai, J)