1 13WP.2262-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2262 OF 2011 Shri Sayed Arif s/o. Late Shri Waris Ali. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and 3 others. ..Respondents. .......... Mr. A.M. Saraogi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. A.S. Pai, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 – State. Ms. Seena Rawde, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. A.R. Pandey, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4. .......... CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR AND P. D. KODE, JJ. DATED : 20th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Twofold grievance has been made in this Petition. First is about the unauthorized structure erected by respondent Nos.1 & 2 within and outside the premises situated on the ground floor of the building known as “Mamta” 183, Water Field Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050. The second relief is to issue direction to the Authority to terminate the licence granted to respondent Nos.3 & 4 for their illegal activities carried on in the premises in breach of the licence conditions. PPD 2 13WP.2262-11 2. As regards the first aspect is concerned, the question whether respondent Nos.3 & 4 have erected illegal structure or otherwise is a matter which will have to be addressed by the appropriate Authorities of the Corporation in the first instance. Counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that the said issue is already pending consideration before the appropriate Authority i.e. Deputy Municipal Commissioner, which proceedings have been initiated on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner. In that event, we relegate the parties to pursue the said remedy. The question whether the petitioner has locus standi to object to the illegal structure erected by respondent Nos.3 & 4 can also be considered by the appropriate Authority of the Corporation. 3. Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4 submits that even respondents Nos.3 & 4 have made complaint in respect of illegal structure erected by the petitioner in the same building on the top floor. If it is so, even that grievance must be examined by the appropriate Authority of the Corporation. Both the complaints – filed by the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.3 & 4 – will have to be taken to its logical end which is the statutory obligation of 3 13WP.2262-11 the appropriate Authority. We keep all the questions in the said proceedings open, to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. 4. As regards the second relief claimed for cancellation of licence given to respondent Nos.3 & 4 on account of illegal activities carried out in the premises in question or for that matter committing breach of licence condition, even this complaint, we are informed, is pending before the Licence Department (in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police). We direct the said Authority to examine the said grievance on its own merits in accordance with law after giving fair opportunity to all the concerned. All questions in that behalf are left open. 5. While parting, we direct the concerned Authorities of the Corporation as well as the Licence Department to ensure that the respective complaints are decided expeditiously and in any case not later than six weeks from receipt of the copy of this order. 6. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (P. D. KODE, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)