-: 1 :- wp-3846/08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3846 OF 2008. Rangdas Swami Shikshan Vikas Mandal. ..Petitioner. Versus Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr. T. D. Deshmukh for the petitioner. Mr. N. V. Walawalkar, Sr. Advocate i/b G. H. Keluskar for respondent no. 1. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : August 2, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. T. D. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. V. Walawalkar, learned Sr. Advocate for respondent no.1. 2. By filing an appeal under section 81F of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 [for short “the said Act”] the petitioner challenged notice issued by 1st respondent under section 81-B of the said Act. By the impugned order, learned District Judge held that the petitioners’ appeal is not maintainable. The petitioner does not have objection regarding the finding recorded by the Court below in respect of maintainability of appeal. However, the petitioner is making grievance about the affirmative finding recorded in the said order in respect of legality of the notice issued by respondent no.1 under section 81-B of the said Act. srp -: 2 :- wp-3846/08 3. I find substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned District Judge having held that the appeal is not maintainable, could not have gone into legality of notice. Till date Respondent no.1 pursuant to the notice under section 81-B, has not issued eviction order. The petitioner also has not filed reply to the notice issued under section 81-B. In the above circumstances, writ petition is disposed of by passing following order. -: O R D E R :- (1) The impugned order dated 8th February 2008 is quashed and set aside. (2) The petitioner is at liberty to give reply to the notice issued by respondent no.1 under section 81-B of the said Act, within the period of four weeks from today. If the reply is not filed within the stipulated time, the Corporation is free to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. (3) After considering the reply filed by the petitioner, Respondent no.1 shall pass appropriate order, independently on its own merits and without being influenced by the impugned order. (R.V. MORE, J.)