1 mss OSWP+1787 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1787 OF 2010 VENKATESH PREMISES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. & ORS. .. PETITIONERS Vs. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF BRIHANMUMBAI & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Sr. Counsel with Mr. A. K. Thakkar i/b Mahimtura & Co. for the petitioners Mr. K. K. Singhvi, Sr. Counsel for M.M.C. CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & RAJESH G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED : 15/3/2011 P.C. We have heard Mr. Chinoy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“MCGM”). 2. Mr. Chinoy has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 8/3/2011 in Dalamal Tower Premises Co-operative Society 2 mss OSWP+1787 Ltd. & Ors. v. The Municipal Corporation for Brihan Mumbai & Ors., in Civil Appeal No. 4120 of 2007. Mr. Chinoy submits that in view thereof prayers (b) and (c) do not arise and hence he is not pressing those prayers. 3. Mr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation states that; (a) The impugned notices dated 24/3/2009 (Exhs.-E & F annexed to the petition are notices against which the petitioners have lodged complaints. Those complaints will be disposed of after hearing the petitioners. Until those complaints are disposed of and the rateable value is fixed for the relevant period the MCGM will not take any action on the basis of those notices; (b) that the demand / bill for property taxes (Exh.-F annexed to the petition) will be withdrawn, if liberty is granted to issue fresh demand/bill after the aforesaid complaints are disposed of and rateable value is fixed for the relevant period; (c) The provisional assessment order dated 18/1/2010 (Exh.-H annexed to the petition) will be withdrawn, if liberty to pass final order fixing 3 mss OSWP+1787 rateable value after disposing of the Complaint No. ACR/Gen/ 29 of 2011 (Exh.-K annexed to the petition) after giving fresh hearing to the petitioners is granted. 4. We accept the statement made by Mr. Singhvi. We give liberty to the MCGM as prayed for in clauses (b) and (c) of paragraph 3. In view of this statement made by Mr. Singhvi, the petition does not survive and is disposed of as such. 5. However, we make it clear that all contentions of the parties are expressly kept open, which can be agitated in any appropriate court, if the need arises. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (RAJESH G. KETKAR, J.)