*1* nms.398.10 kps I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.398 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2 OF 2010 AND IN WRIT PETITION NO.131 OF 2010 Rama Samy Palany Samy. ..Petitioners -Versus- The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and other. ..Respondents .... Mr.Rajeev Aggarwal, Applicant (original Respondent No.2), present in person. Mr.Mehul Shah i/b Bharat Joshi, for the original Petitioner. Ms.Geeta Joglekar, for the Respondent No.1/BMC. .... CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, CJ & S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 01st October, 2010. P.C. 1 This is a Notice of Motion moved by the original Respondent No.2/Applicant. He requests that strict action be taken against the original Petitioners who used forged documents in this Court and filed a false affidavit, so also, criminal complaint be filed against them and the Registrar of this Court be directed to do so. 2 The Applicant who is appearing in person is Managing Director of the Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition. He was party to the proceedings which were decided by this Court on 15.06.2010. His contention is that the original Petitioners are relying upon a plan which is *2* nms.398.10 forged and fabricated. 3 The original Petitioners impugned the notice under Section 53(1) of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 in the said Writ Petitions. These Writ Petitions have been disposed of by the Division Bench on 15.06.2010 permitting the original Petitioners to approach the Planning Authority and invoke its jurisdiction under Section 53(3) of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 by pointing out that the construction work at site is authorized and legal. It was clarified that during the course of hearing on such application even the present Applicant will be heard. The Applicant does not dispute that the original Petitioners have applied for reliefs in terms of the said order and the Planning Authority has heard both Petitioners as well as the Applicant before us. 4 We have no doubt in our mind that the Corporation/ Planning Authority will deal with the contentions of both sides including that the plans that have been forwarded and relied upon are allegedly forged and fabricated. Neither the order dated 15.06.2010 nor anything observed therein concluded the controversy. 5 In the circumstances, the Corporation shall deal with the said aspect and pass an appropriate order. The Corporation shall pass and communicate a reasoned order to all parties by 15th October, 2010. 6 Notice of Motion disposed off. No costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.