1 wpl-1926-11 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1926 OF 2011 Sahyog ..Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Vikram Pai for the Petitioner Ms Calcuttawala AGP for Respondent State Ms P.A.Purandare for Respondent MCGM CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. :- 1 The grievance of the Petitioner in this Petition is that the Corporation is not allowing the Petitioner to hold an exhibition which was intended to be organised by the Petitioner in respect of handloom and handicrafts. The Petitioner had applied for permission for holding such exhibition for the period from 1-8-2011 to 31-10-2011 to the Corporation. The Corporation initially granted the permission subject to NOC from the police department. Since the police department has not granted the NOC, the exhibition could not be held. The Corporation directed the Petitioner to remove the material from site and also intimated that the Corporation will not be responsible any damage to the material in the case of demolition of temporary shed that was put up by the Petitioner. 2 wpl-1926-11 2 The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner is still interested in organising the said exhibition in the area in question i.e. Kopari Village, Powai. The Petitioner is permitted to apply again for permission for allotment of site for the exhibition with new dates. The Learned AGP states that police has no objection subject to maintenance of law and order. Considering the same, if any fresh application is made by the Petitioner for holding an exhibition, the Corporation may pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The police authority may also give NOC in this behalf subject to maintenance of law and order, The Corporation may take immediate decision on such application and if the Petitioner is permitted to organise the exhibition, the Corporation to inform immediately about the same to the Petitioner. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that for the earlier allotment the Petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- with the Corporation towards the security deposit, lease rent and other charges of the Corporation, which also included charges for construction of temporary shade on site. 3 The Learned Counsel for the Corporation submits that the Corporation was required to incur heavy expenditure for removing the temporary shade as well as for the rent for the period during which the temporary structure was in existence. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that it is true that the Petitioner has put a temporary shade for the exhibition but the exhibition was not held as the police 3 wpl-1926-11 department has not given NOC earlier and the Petitioner, therefore, could not earn anything. 4 In our view, while considering the question of deposit of the amount for the exhibition, if any permission is granted by the Corporation, the Corporation may take a reasonable view in the matter regarding the expenditure which it has incurred for demolition of the temporary shade. It is needless to say that whatever amount deposited by the Petitioner may be adjusted towards the future deposit, in case the Corporation decides to make allotment to the Petitioner. It is clarified that whether permission should be granted for such exhibition or not is the discretion of the Corporation and it is not for us to direct the Corporation to give permission. But needless to say that the permission granted should be by adhering to the rules and regulations that may be applicable. In case any application is made by the Petitioner for allotment the Corporation may take appropriate decision in accordance with law within two weeks from the receipt of the same. It will be open to the Corporation to retain part of the deposited amount towards demolition charges. 5 Subject to what is stated above the Petition is disposed of. (R.M.Savant, J.) (P.B.Majmudar, J.)