1 wp2288-11 jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2288 OF 2011 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others .. Petitioners Versus Umashankar vishwanath Vishwakarma ... Respondent Mr. Anil C. Singh i/by Mr. R. A. Malandkar for the petitioner Mr. A. B. Mishra for the respondent CORAM : R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 10rd October, 2011 P.C. 1. Rule, rule made returnable forthwith. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent waives service. By consent, the petition is taken up for hearing. 2. Respondent herein had filed Long Cause Suit No. 310 of 2007 praying that the Corporation should be restrained from demolishing the suit structure pursuant notice issued under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act and the order passed thereon. The learned judge of the City Civil Court passed order on 7th January, 2010 in the said suit. The order the demolition was set aside and the petitioner was directed to pass a reasoned order, and the 2 wp2288-11 respondent was directed to file reply within four weeks. As no reply was filed by the respondent the petitioner issued demolition notice dated 7th May, 2010 and thereafter the structure covered by the aforesaid suit came to be demolished. Thereafter respondent filed application for execution of the said decree dated 7th January, 2010 and the learned Judge of the City Civil Court had issued warrant of attachment as per Column No.(j) to the application, against which, this petition is filed. 3. I have heard learned advocates on both sides. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner stated across the Bar as well on the basis of affidavit dated 29th July, 2011 that the petitioner has re-constructed the structure pursuant to the order passed by this Court. The learned advocate for the petitioner, therefore submits that the corporation shall now hear the respondent and pass an appropriate order. 5. Learned advocate for the respondent submits that except installation of the new electricity meter and the internal wiring, the petitioner have complied with the order as regards re-constructions of the structure. Since premises were being used for commercial purposes as to what internal fittings would be necessary can best be decided by the respondent. The responsibility of the corporation would be to see that new electricity connection is made available to the respondent so that the respondent can do the internal fittings at his cost. 3 wp2288-11 6. Notice issued under Section 351 is required to be taken to its logical end and to that extent, appropriate orders would have to be passed. 7. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the petition is disposed of by passing the following order: i. The order dated 7 th January, 2011 passed by the learned City Civil Judge in Execution Application No. 37 of 2010 is set aside. ii. The petitioner shall consider the reply fled by the respondent along with the documents in the proceedings initiated under section 351 of the Municipal Corporation Act. The respondent shall offer personal hearing to the respondent. The concerned officers shall pass speaking order on the said notice and shall serve copy of the same upon the respondent and his advocate appearing in City Civil Court in Special Civil Suit No. 310 of 2007. iii. Till final orders are passed on Notice under section 351 by the Municipal Corporation Act, and service of the same upon the respondent and his advocate and for a period of 2 weeks thereafter, the corporation shall not demolish the structure, if order is against the respondent. 4 wp2288-11 iv. The statement made by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the structure is reconstructed is accepted. v. The learned advocate for the respondent admits that the respondent is in possession of the said structure. The respondent shall make application to the Reliance Energy Ltd. for getting new electricity connection. The concerned officer of the petitioner shall pass endorsement that the petitioners' have no objection for supply of new electricity connection to the structure which has been duly constructed pursuant to order passed by this this court. Accordingly, the Reliance Energy shall process the said application on merit and if the said application granted, may supply new connection to the said premises. vi. After the electricity supply connection is given to respondent, the internal electricity fitting be done at his cost. vii. Learned Advocate for the respondent, upon instructions, states that after securing new electricity connection to the suit premises which were reconstructed that too pursuant to the order of this Court, the respondent shall withdraw the L.C. Suit No. 310 of 2007. 5 wp2288-11 viii. If the order is passed by the petitioner against the respondent in the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner is free to challenge the said order or by instituting a fresh suit. ix. It is clarified that merely because the petitioner was directed to re- construct the structure, that would not give right to the respondent to say that the structure which is now re-constructed is authorized. x. There shall be no order as to costs. (R. Y. GANOO, J.)