ssp 1 WP 1994 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1994 OF 2011 Abdul Kalrim Sathe .....Petitioner versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ..... Respondent Mr.Indu Prakash i/by Mr.C.K.Tripathi, for the petitioner. Ms.P.A.Purandare, for the respondent. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 21 st DECEMBER, 2011 P.C. 1. By way of this petition, it is prayed that the representation made by the petitioner before the respondent-Corporation has not been decided one way or the other. Counsel for the respondent-Corporation states that as per the averments made in para No.4 of the representation dated 14-02-2011 of the petitioner made before the respondent- Corporation, the petitioner has stated that the stall was neither on foot path nor on road, but was abetting to a building called ‘Kantivilla’. Counsel for the respondent submits that if the said averments are correct, the petitioner may not be entitled for alternative place. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Corporation has demolished his stall for road widening and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to alternative place. ssp 2 WP 1994 of 2011 2. Without expressing any opinion on this issue, we direct the petitioner to make fresh representation in this behalf to the respondent- Corporation i.e. Assistant Commissioner, K/West Ward, Mumbai Municipal Corporation and such representation may be made within a period of four weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the concerned Officer of the Corporation may take appropriate decision in accordance with law on the representation of the petitioner within a period of two months from the receipt of the same from the petitioner and the decision may be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. 3. In view of what is stated above, the writ petition is disposed of. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)