sk 1 wp7252.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.7252 OF 2011 Shri Gourakh Rupla Patil & Anr. : Petitioners V/s. The Commissioner, Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.Mihir Desai i/b. Ms Kumud A. Bhatia for the petitioners. Mr.A.S.Rao for respondent nos.1,2,4 & 7. Ms M.P.Thakur, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos.3, 5 & 6. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 05, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respective respondents. 2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 6.8.2011 passed by the respondent no.7 whereby the representation of the petitioners pertaining to construction of building constructed on land bearing survey no.116, hissa no.2B of Mouje Manda came to be rejected. The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners on the sk 2 wp7252.11 earlier occasion had filed Writ Petition No.4075 of 2011 against the notice issued by the respondents under section 260 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition vide order dated 27.6.2011 and liberty was given to the petitioners to make a representation for regularisation of the disputed structure. In view of the said decision of this Court, the petitioners made a representation dated 27.6.2011 to the competent authority which was rejected by the authority by passing the impugned order. Hence, this petition. 3. The counsel for the petitioners has further contended that in paragraph 3 of the order dated 27.6.2011, this Court has observed that if the representation is not in proper form, the Commissioner or the authorised Officer shall inform the petitioners in that behalf and call upon the petitioners to comply with the necessary requirements for considering the request for regularization of the disputed structure. It is submitted that at the time of hearing on the representation before the authority, the petitioners made a request to the competent authority to grant time for submission of plans and requisite documents in respect of the disputed construction. However, the competent authority did not grant any time to the petitioners and rejected the representation of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners did not submit ownership documents, area sk 3 wp7252.11 calculation plan, zoning, etc. The counsel for the petitioners, therefore, contended that the action of the competent authority in not granting time to the petitioners for submission of appropriate documents is inconsistent with the observations made by this Court in paragraph 3 of the order dated 27.6.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.4075 of 2011. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.1,2,4 & 7 does not dispute the factual aspect of the matter. 5. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the decision of this Court dated 27.6.2011 in Writ Petition No.4075 of 2011. The Division Bench in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order dated 27.6.2011 has observed thus:- “3. In the circumstances, we dispose of this Petition with direction to the respondent No.1 to consider the representation made by the petitioners for regularisation of the disputed structure. If the said representation is not in proper form, the Commissioner or the authorised Officer shall sk 4 wp7252.11 inform the petitioners in that behalf and call upon the petitioners to comply with the necessary requirements for considering the request for regularisation of the disputed structure. That communication be sent to the petitioners within two weeks from today. Whereas, if it is found that the representation submitted by the petitioners is in order, the Commissioner or the authorized Officer may proceed to examine the same and take decision one way or the other in accordance with law after giving opportunity to all concerned as expeditiously as possible and in any case, not later than 8th August, 2011. All questions in respect of regularisation of the disputed structure are left open. 4. If the representation were to be rejected on the finding that regularisation of the structure is not possible, in that case, the Corporation will be free to take appropriate action with regard to the disputed structure on the basis of the notice already sk 5 wp7252.11 issued to the petitioners in that behalf and take it to its logical end, two weeks after the adverse decision is communicated to the petitioners.” The above observations clearly demonstrate that the petitioners were given an opportunity to make a representation in respect of regularisation of the disputed structure and the authority was also asked to grant time to the petitioners to submit appropriate documents, if the representation is not in proper form. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners asked for time to submit the requisite documents. However, the request has not been granted by the competent authority, this action obviously is inconsistent with the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 6.8.2011 passed by the Asstt. Director, Town Planning (respondent no.7). The counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2, 4 & 7 has submitted that the petitioners will be given opportunity to submit the requisite documents within the stipulated period and shall re-consider the representation afresh, in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard. In view of the positive statement made by the sk 6 wp7252.11 learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2, 4 & 7, no directions are necessary. 7. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Till a decision is taken by the respondent no.1 on the representation of the petitioners afresh, the parties to maintain status quo and if the order is adverse to the petitioners, the same shall not be given effect for a period of two weeks from the date of the order. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (R.Y. GANOO,J.)