SM 1 3.ao.1142.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1142 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1519 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1142 OF 2011 Mateen Ahmed Niyaz Ahmed and others ....Appellants. Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. ....Respondent. ____________ Mr. Anil Singh i/b Mr. Atul S. Singh for the Appellants. Ms. K. K. Soraan for the Respondent-BMC. CORAM: R. M. BORDE, J. DATED : DECEMBER 17, 2011. P.C.: The appellant has challenged the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation on 8th November, 2010 under Section 351 of the MMC Act as well as the consequential order passed on 6th January, 2011 directing demolition of the unauthorised construction. The counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out the sanctioned plan and contended that the structure is in consonance with the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation. The sanctioned plan does not appear to have been placed before the Assistant Commissioner, C-Ward while he passed the impugned order. The counsel appearing for the respondent was directed to take instructions as regards the authenticity of the plan shown by the counsel appearing for the respondent. However, there is no response from the respondent’s side and no SM 2 3.ao.1142.11 clarification has been issued as regards the authenticity of the plan. 2. In these circumstances, it would be desirable to direct the Assistant Commissioner, C-Ward to peruse the record and pass an appropriate order afresh. The impugned order as well as the order passed on 6th January, 2011, therefore, stand quashed and the impugned order matter is remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration. The appellant shall produce necessary documents before the concerned authority within a period of three weeks from today and the Assistant Commissioner, C-Ward shall take decision in respect of the notice issued by him earlier on 8th November, 2010 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks thereafter. Till the decision is rendered by the Assistant Commissioner, C-Ward, no adverse action shall be taken against the appellant. 3. In view of these directions, appeal from order stands disposed of. In view of disposal of the appeal from order, pending civil application does not survive and stands disposed of. The suit presented by the appellant before the City Civil Court does not survive in view of the directions issued in the matter. Suit is also stands disposed of as infructuous. (R. M. BORDE, J.)