1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1156 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1156 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1156 OF 2008 Jay Nalini Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd., .. Peitioner. vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. A.A. Joshi & Ms. Kavita Breed i/by Nivit Srivastava for Petitioner. Ms. P.A. Purandare for Respondent Nos. 1, & 2. Mr. G.V. Murti i/by Murti & Asso. for Respondent Nos. 4 to 7. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & K.K. TATED, JJ. K.K. TATED, JJ. K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE: 19TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE: 19TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE: 19TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner society has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction or order against the respondent Municipal Corporation to forthwith initiate and vigorously pursue legal action against respondent nos. 4 to 6 under the 2 Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 and remove the unauthorised development carried out by them and further to grant occupation certificate as also building completion certificate in respect of the petitioner’s building named Nalini situated on Plot No. 560, 11th Road, Chembur, Bombay - 400 071 without insisting upon restoration of status quo ante in respect of the balcony of flat nos. 3, 5 and 9 of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and for ancillary reliefs. 3. The petitioner society has constructed additional flats for which they have sought permission from the respondent Municipal Corporation. According to the petitioner, these flats have been constructed after obtaining commencement certificate but the Corporation has failed to issue completion certificate in respect of flats in question and to grant occupation certificate and building completion certificate. 4. The petitioner society also wants the Corporation to take action against respondent nos. 4 to 6 under the MRTP Act, 1966 for the additions and alterations carried out by them within their flats which is not in consonance with the sanctioned plan. It is for these reasons, the Corporation refused to grant occupation certificate and building completion certificate in respect of the petitioner’s building. 5. It is the case of the respondent Corporation 3 that unless and until the petitioner society complied with all the requirements in accordance with the sanctioned plan, they cannot be issued building completion certificate and occupation certificate cannot be given to the flats in question. 6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 to 7 submits that as directed by this Court in a previous litigation between the parties which came to be disposed of on 3rd April, 2006 (Writ Petition No. 2729 of 2004 - Jay Nalini Co-operative Hsg. Sty. Ltd., vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors.), the respondents have submitted a plan through licensed architect for regularisation of the additions and alterations to the Executive Engineer (Building Proposal) Eastern Suburbans who had issued notice under Section 53 of the MRPT Act. 7. In our view, it is not for this Court to examine the matter of grant of building completion certificate or occupation certificate to the parties particularly when there are certain deficiencies pointed out by the local planning authority i.e. the respondent MCGM. Needless to say that as soon as the society meets all the necessary requirements to make them eligible and entitled for occupation certificate and building completion certificate, the Corporation is bound to issue the same as part of their statutory duties. 4 8. We, therefore, dispose of this petition with a direction to the Municipal Corporation to inspect the building of the society and take appropriate steps in accordance with law to mean in case there are unauthorised constructions in the building of the society then take steps to remove the same and it is only after compliance of all the provisions of the building bye laws and rules governing the same, that the Corporation shall issue occupation certificate as well as building completion certificate to the society. We make it clear that in case it is within the powers of the Municipal Corporation to regularise the additions and alterations carried out by the members of the society they should be given a fair opportunity to apply for regularisation but fair opportunity does not mean indefinite time available at the disposal of the members of the society for applying to the Corporation for regularisation of the unauthorised construction. It should be the time as provided under the statute particularly the MRTP Act, 1966. 9. We fail to understand what adverse interest society has against respondent nos. 4 to 7 as it has specifically come to this Court seeking a direction against them to the Municipal Corporation to remove the said unauthorised construction. If Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 have carried out additions and alterations which is in violation of the building bye laws and rules and 5 regulations governing the same, nothing prevents the Corporation from proceeding against them and from the record we find that the Corporation is initiating action against them by issuing notice under Section 53 of the MRTP Act, 1966 which was also the subject matter of the previous litigation. It is in the above circumstances, this court is not inclined to entertain this petition. The same stands dismissed. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (K.K. Tated, J.) (K.K. Tated, J.) (K.K. Tated, J.)