1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.884 OF 2008 Smt.Shantabai @ Nilo B.Rathod .. Petitioner Versus The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.A.Sawant for petitioner Ms.Preeti Purandare for B.M.C. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 30th April 2008 P.C. . The petitioner has challenged in this petition the orders dated on 11th December 2006 and 28th September 2007 which are passed by the Dy.Municipal Commissioner, Zone V of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, Mumbai. These orders hold that the petitioner is not eligible for alternate accommodation as per the present policy. There are two conclusions recorded, one about eligibility and second that the petitioner is not project affected person. Mr.Sawant appearing for 2 petitioner submits that on both counts the order is ex facie erroneous and bad in law. He points out that there are no denials of the averments in the petition. Petitioner was known earlier as Nilo Rathod and her present name is Shanta B. Rathod. An extract from Government Gazette with regard to change of name is produced. It is pointed out that the petitioner was in occupation and use of the structure more particularly described in para 3(b) of the petition. Ration Card, voters’ list and other documents would show that she was residing in the structure prior to 1st January 19995. She is eligible for a photo pass as per the Government Resolution dated 11th July 2001. This is a censused structure and, therefore, an application for photopass was made. All documents, copies of which are annexed to the petition, were duly produced. It was urged that the petitioner is a project affected person because the structure was demolished for Beautification of the road. In such 3 circumstances, repeated representations have been made from 19th March 1999 till date requesting the respondents to grant alternate accommodation to the petitioner. These requests have been turned down and in earlier round of litigation this Court had directed that the petitioner be heard and appropriate orders passed on her representation. 2. Despite petitioner producing voluminous documents and pointing out as to how the structure came to be demolished by the Corporation, the above order has been passed. 3. After the matter was argued for some time, on the earlier occasion I had directed Ms.Purandare to take instructions as to whether the Corporation is willing to reconsider the petitioner’s claim without being influenced by the earlier orders and directions. In other words, whether the representations can be 4 considered afresh and disposed of after hearing the petitioner, by a speaking order. 4. The matter was adjourned till today. Ms.Purandare, upon taking instructions from D.M.C. Zone V makes a statement that a high powered officer viz., Additional Municipal Commissioner, Eastern Suburbs would now reconsider the entire matter and grant personal hearing to the petitioner in the manner directed by this Court. Mr.Sawant states that the petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the Additional Municipal Commissioner on the date and time fixed by this Court. 5. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall appear before the Additional Municipal Commissioner (Eastern Suburbs) on 8th May 2008 at 11.00 a.m. He shall permit her to produce such material as is relevant and necessary to support the pleas in her 5 representation. Needless to state that the material that is already produced and would be produced on the date and time stipulated above, must be considered by the said authority and he/she should pass a speaking order as expeditiously as possible after the date of appearance and in any event within three weeks from such date. Needless to further clarify that the Additional Municipal Commissioner shall not be influenced by the observations and findings/conclusions in the earlier order but must apply his mind afresh and independent of the same. Petition disposed of. 6. If the Additional Commissioner holds that the petitioner is eligible, then, irrespective of whatever is the prevalent policy, the authorities shall treat the petitioner as project affected person and allot her permanent accommodation either in the same project or in the vicinity of the same and such allotment shall also be made 6 within two weeks from the date of disposal of her representations favourably. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)