1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1151 OF 2008 Orina Fransis Lobo & Anr ..Petitioner. -versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & others .. Respondents Mr. H. S.S. Murthy, advocate for the petitioners. Shri K. K. Singhavi, Senior advocate with Ms S.M.Mondle for the respondent No.l. Mr. A. C.Singh, i/b. D.R. Shah, for respondent No.2. CORAM: J. N. PATEL & R. G. KETKAR JJ. DATED: 31st March,2009 P.C. 1. The petition was filed seeking direction against respondent -Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, for taking action in accordance with the provisions of of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act,1966 or Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, l888 (for short called as “MMC Act”) for stopping non residential use of residential premises bearing room No.5, situate at Harishankar Niwas, Chincholi Bunder road, Malad (W), Mumbai(for short “said premises”), 2 occupied by the second respondent herein. In support of this prayer, the petitioners relied upon the correspondence made by them with the Corporation and on account of failure of the authorities of the Corporation, the petitioners were constrained to institute the present petition. 2. By order dated March 16, 2009, the Court recorded statement made by Shri K.K.Singvi, learned Senior Counsel that the competent authority will take immediate action in the matter as provided under section 394(4) of the MMC Act. The said statement was accepted. 3. Pursuant to that, the Assistant Commissioner-P South Ward, issued notice under section 394(3) of the MMC Act, on March 16, 2009, to the second respondent calling upon him to comply the requisition within 48 hours. Since there was no corrective action taken by the Second respondent, seizure action was taken on March 21, 2009 by disconnecting the electricity and articles lying in the said premises. To that effect affidavit of Mr S. R.Sarpotdar, Senior Inspector (License), made on March 30, 2009 is 3 filed enclosing therewith the copy of the report of removal action taken on March 21, 2009, as also photographs taken at that time. It is also set out in the affidavit that the costs incurred for seizure action taken under section 394(4) of the Act is Rs.l4,000/- approximately which is due and payable by the second respondent. 4. The second respondent Bhawesh Makwana, has made an affidavit undertaking to pay the costs of Rs.l4,000/- to the respondent No.l for removal of articles from the said premises within two weeks from today. 5. We accept the undertaking. In view of the aforesaid undertaking, nothing survive in the writ petition and the same is disposed of accordingly. (J.N. PATEL J.) (R.G. KETKAR, J)