1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3567 OF 2009 (Central India Institute of Mass Communication vs. State and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri Z.A. Haq, Advocate for petitioner. Shri A.S. Fulzele, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1. Shri S.M. Puranik, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 4. ------- CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND P.B.VARALE, JJ. DATED : JULY 1, 2010 Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 30/1/2009 by which its appeal under Section 76-F of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (for short, “the Act”) has been dismissed by the District Judge, Nagpur. In the appeal, the petitioner had challenged the communication dated 8/1/2008 issued by the Estate Officer, Nagpur Municipal Corporation. By this 2 communication, the petitioner was asked to pay certain amounts towards unauthorized occupation of the premises in dispute and to vacate the premises and deliver its possession to the Corporation. The respondent Corporation is owner of 1290 sq.ft. constructed area situate at old Dharampeth, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Nagpur. These premises were initially made available to the petitioner for a period of eleven months, i.e. 6/9/1999 to 5/8/2000 on payment of occupation charges amounting to Rs.99,330/-. This period of licence was thereafter extended from time to time till 5/8/2003. Since 5/8/2003, according to the Corporation, the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the said premises and hence, it issued the communication dated 8/1/2008, which was challenged in the appeal under Section 76-F of the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, invited our attention to the impugned order and submitted that the communication dated 8/1/2008 issued by the Corporation asking the petitioner to pay the unauthorized occupation 3 charges and to deliver possession of the premises was on the basis of the order dated 1/12/2007, purportedly issued by the Municipal Commissioner. He submitted that this order is not in existence and, therefore, the very basis for asking the petitioner to deliver possession of the premises is wrong and illegal. In support of these contentions, he invited our attention to the office noting made by the Junior Engineer, dated 21/7/2007. That noting was made on the petitioner's application dated 21/6/2007. By that application, addressed to the Additional Municipal Commissioner, the petitioner had requested for removal of the seal and allowing the petitioner to use the premises. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Junior Engineer vide his noting dated 21/7/2007 had recommended to remove the seal. The recommendation was approved by the Additional Municipal Commissioner. In view thereof, he submitted that action of the Corporation to remove the petitioner from the premises in question is illegal. The submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are devoid of any merits. 4 The period for which the licence was granted got over on 5.8.2003 and thereafter the Corporation never extended the licence period. The possession of the petitioner after 5/8/203 was, therefore, illegal/ unauthorized. Moreover, the petitioner cannot rely upon the office notings made by the Officers of the Corporation to claim any right on the basis thereof in the premises, more particularly when the Corporation has come before the Court with the case that it needs these premises for its own occupation. In this backdrop, the submission that the order dated 1.12.2007 is not in existence becomes redundant. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders impugned in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj