1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 319 OF 2008 Paresh Chunilal Shah Memorial Charitable Trust & Anr. ..... Petitioners. Versus Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. ..... Respondents. Mr. V. A. Thorat, Sr. Counsel i/by Ms. S. S. Gokhale for the petitioners. Mr. N. A. Shaikh for the Respondents. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI and A. P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : 17TH APRIL, 2008. P. C.: Rule. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service of Rule. 3. By consent, Rule made returnable and heard forthwith. 4. The petitioners wanted to reconstruct a building and create additional accommodation. An N.O.C. was required to be given by the respondents. The N.O.C. Was given on 28th February, 2000 on payment of Rs.23,65,578/-. This amount was paid by the petitioners but the reconstruction was not made within the stipulated period of time. 2 According to the petitioners, they could not reconstruct because there was dispute between the Trust, which owned the property, and the occupants of the property. As such the petitioners abandoned the idea of reconstruction and approached the respondents for refund of the amount in terms of their policy laid down in “Norms for granting extension of Time Limit for carrying out the works on Lease-hold plots”. Without considering the import of the policy, the respondents rejected the request of the petitioners vide communication dated 23rd August, 2006 in the first instance. In this communication the Corporation stated, `With reference to your above cited letter and by direction of Municipal Commissioner, this is to inform you that your request to refund of the forfeited amount of Rs.8,81,606/- can not be considered”. Subsequently also similar orders were passed. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed and we have gone through the same. We have also heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. We feel that the impugned order is passed without assigning any reason and without considering the request of the petitioners for refund in terms of the policy to which a reference has been made hereinabove. The quasi- judicial authorities, who decide the civil rights of people, are required by law to give reasons for taking a view in a matter before them. For this 3 reason the counter affidavit filed has also not been able to convince us that the matter was considered by the respondent Corporation in the appropriate perspective. 6. In view of the above, we allow this writ petition. Quash the impugned order and direct the respondent Corporation to consider the request of the petitioners for refund in accordance with the policy, to which a reference has been made earlier, and to pass speaking order by giving reasons. They may do so within four weeks from the date they receive the authenticated copy of this order. 7. Rule made absolute in the above terms. Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (A. P. BHANGALE, J.)