1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1472 OF 2008 Babubhai Damji Patel .. Petitioner Versus M.C.G.M. .. Respondent Ms.Archana Khan for petitioner Ms.Archana Joshi for respondent No.1 Ms.Smita Gaydhani for respondent No.2. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 14th July 2008 P.C. . The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya dated 17th May 2008. A copy of this order is annexed to the petition by the petitioner as Annexure A. 2. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation had 2 issued a notice to the petitioner on 11th February 2006. It is the case of the Corporation that the petitioner has enclosed the compulsory open space in violation of Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai. 3. The petitioner replied to the said notice and contended that what was erected was a temporary weather shed at site and it was not a permanent construction. 4. The petitioner sought leave to apply for regularisation, inasmuch as, the liberty was granted in that behalf. Regularisation proposal was also rejected on 16th August 2006 by the concerned Executive Engineer. 5. Against this rejection, an appeal under section 47 of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 was preferred, which is dismissed by the impugned order. 3 6. After the matter was argued for some time, learned Advocate for petitioner makes a statement on instructions that the petitioner desires to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the Corporation with a fresh representation in the light of changed circumstances. The petitioner makes a statement before this Court that if the representation is not decided in favour of the petitioner, he would pull down or remove the said structure at his own cost and expenses on or before 30th Septmeber 2008. The petitioner states that representation would be filed within fifteen days from today. If such a representation is received, the Executive Engineer, Building Proposals of the Corporation to dispose the same within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the same. Needless to state that if the request of petitioner is not accepted and the petitioner does not pull down the structure, the Corporation 4 shall remove the same anytime after 30th September 2008 and, thereafter, proceed against the petitioner to recover cost, charges and expenses of such removal. In no case the petitioner, if unsuccessful, shall be permitted to retain the structure after 30th September 2008. The petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty aforesaid, in the light of the statement of petitioner and dismissed as such. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)