:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 741 OF 2008 Shri Ratanshi U. Satra ...Petitioners. Versus Municipal Corporation of Gr.Bombay and Ors. ..Respondents. ====== Mr.Anil Singh i/by. Mr.D.R.Shah, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr. A.A.Joshi, Adv. for Respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr.R.J.Mane, AGP for respondent no.4. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 15TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Heard Mr.Singh appearing for the petitioner and the Learned counsel appearing for BMC. 2. Perused the petition and the Annexures thereto. The order passed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition proceeds on the basis that the Structure :2: :2: :2: is unauthorised and has been put up without any permission. This court therefore was inclined to reject the petition and proceeded to reject it but by protecting the petitioner. The protection was to enable the petitioner to apply for regularisation of the structure in terms of the prevalent policies of the Corporation. If the Application for regularisation was made, then, the same was directed to be considered. The time frame was stipulated and that is how the petition filed by the petitioner was rejected. 3. The petitioner sought review of that order and the Review Petition was disposed off on 13.3.2008 by observing that the Review petition itself is an afterthought. This court did not pass a reasoned order as the petitioner did not desire this court to record reasons. 4. Thus, the earlier proceedings are on the basis that the Structure requires regularisation by the Authorities and only then it could be retained. 5. Now, the complaint in this petition is that :3: :3: :3: the directions of this court with regard to the regularisation have not been implemented and instead the structure has been demolished. 6. In answer to this contention, my attention is invited to the Affidavit-in-reply filed by the Corporation through its Sub-Engineer. 7. The Sub-Engineer has in para-5 of the Affidavit clearly stated that the petitioner instead of making an Application for regularisation, alongwith relevant material through an Architect addressed a letter dated 11.2.2008. That was not an Application for regularisation. Thereafter, he addressed another letter on 12.2.2008. This was complete non-compliance by the petitioner of the direction issued and protection granted by this court. Be that as it may be, he did not pursue the request, if any made in these letters and proceeded to file a Review Petition. That Review Petition was dismissed. During the pendency of the Review Petition itself, the petitioner had received a Notice that he had failed to apply for regularisation within the time period stipulated by this court and :4: :4: :4: therefore the Corporation is inclined to proceed against the Structure. Despite receipt of this letter, the petitioner pursued the Review Petition and after it was rejected addressed a Letter on 12.3.2008. The letter was addressed by one M/s.Shekhar Arolkar and Associates, Architect. The letter proceeds to state that the petitioner has appointed him as an Architect and he would submit a proposal for regularisation. This Letter can hardly be treated as any proposal for regularisation as it was not accompanied by necessary documents. Thus, the Corporation concluded that the petitioner is gaining time and is really not interested in having the regularisation of the Structure in terms of the prevalent policies. Reiterating its earlier stand that the Structure was unauthorised, the Respondent Corporation gave fresh Notice to the petitioner and that is how it proceeded to demolish the Structure. 8. Now, Mr.Singh would like to me to go into the issues which are highly disputed and contested. The disputed questions of facts with regard to the proposal for regularisation and whether there was any compliance :5: :5: :5: with the courts directions or not cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction. Whether the petitioner’s letter could be termed as a request for regularisation in terms of the prevalent policies or not, whether such a proposal must come through a Registered Architect or whether the Registered Architect has submitted a proposal accompanied by relevant and necessary documents and further whether the Corporation not treating the same as such had proceeded to demolish the structure which is illegal, are matters which would require a detailed and thorough examination of the prevalent policies after the petitioner proves his case. The Writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for a Civil Suit. No oral evidence can be recorded in such disputed matters. More so, when a Civil Suit for damages is a complete remedy. It is not that the petitioner cannot seek other reliefs in such proceedings. Looked it from any angle, this Writ Petition is not maintainable, when there are such disputed questions of facts arising in the matter. 9. In the above circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits and relegating the petitioner to :6: :6: :6: the remedy of a Civil Suit, this Writ Petition is dismissed. sd/- ********