: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1085 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1478 OF 2009 Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd. .. Appellants V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Counsel, with Mr. Vaibhav Mehta and Ms. D.B. Histry i/b. Vaibhav Mehta & Assoc. for the Appellants. Smt. K.K. Soraan for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 16 TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Appeal from Order has been preferred against the order dated 24th September, 2009 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in Notice of Motion No.1050 of 2008 in L.C. Suit No.724 of 2008 refusing interim relief to the appellants. The appellants were issued a notice dated 25th March, 2008 calling upon them to remove their hoarding situated at Niraj Premises Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 70, Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai-400 008, : 2 : since the hoarding violated clauses 6(a) and 6(c) of the New Policy Guidelines. 2. The appellants-plaintiffs replied to this notice. However, it appears that thereafter they filed the present Suit seeking an injunction against the defendant-Municipal Corporation from removing their hoarding since the respondent- Municipal Corporation passed an order directing the appellants to remove the hoarding. 3. According to the appellants, they are not covered by the New Policy Guidelines since their hoarding was permitted to be erected even prior to the New Policy Guidelines being framed. The appellants have submitted that the term “henceforth” used in clause 6(c) of the New Policy Guidelines indicates that it is applicable to those hoardings which are permitted to be erected after the New Policy Guidelines came into force. 4. Smt. Soraan, on instructions from Mr. S.N. Awhad, Deputy Superintendent of License (City) of : 3 : the respondent-Municipal Corporation, states that the appellants will be given a personal hearing pursuant to the notice issued on 25th March, 2008 by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Special). She submits that it is only after the appellants are heard and appropriate orders are passed, that the respondent-Municipal Corporation will take action of removal of the hoarding. 5. In view of this statement made by Smt. Soraan, appearing on behalf of the respondent-Municipal Corporation, the Appeal from Order is disposed of in the following terms : (i). The impugned order dated 24th September, 2009, passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in Notice of Motion No.1050 of 2008 in L.C. Suit No.724 of 2008, is set aside. (ii). The respondent-Municipal Corporation will afford a personal hearing to the appellants in respect of the notice dated 25th March, 2008. : 4 : (iii). The appellants may file their reply, if any, or any other material to establish their case before the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Special). (iv). The appellants shall appear before the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Special) on 3rd March, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. (v). The Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Special) shall pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from that date. (vi). If any order adverse to the appellants is passed, it shall not be acted upon for a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the order to the appellants. : 5 : (vii). Till this entire exercise is completed, the respondent-Municipal Corporation will not insist on removal of the hoarding. 6. In view of the above, Civil Application No.1478 of 2009 pending in the Appeal from Order does not survive and the same is dismissed as infructuous. .......