:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.248 OF 2009 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.248 OF 2009 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.248 OF 2009 Along with Along with Along with Civil Application No.290 of 2009 Civil Application No.290 of 2009 Civil Application No.290 of 2009 Nazir Haji Hasan Chavan, .. Appellant. Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, .. Respondent Mr B.P.Shukla, for the appellant. Mr Vinod Mahadik, for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 25th MARCH, 2009. DATED : 25th MARCH, 2009. DATED : 25th MARCH, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Appeal from order is directed against an order dated 29.1.2009 passed by the City Civil Court rejecting the Notice of Motion taken out by the appellant-plaintiff seeking injunction restraining the defendant-corporation from removing and/or demolishing the suit stall, without following the due process of law. It appears that the appellant-plaintiff had filed one more suit earlier for the same reliefs as prayed in the present suit, and that suit was disposed of on the basis of the statement made by the counsel for the corporation that they would follow the due process of law. It :2: :2: :2: further appears that the corporation followed the due process of law by issuing a notice under section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act and then removed the suit stall on 21.1.2008. Mr Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the notice, purportedly issued under section 314, was never served on the appellant and, therefore, it cannot be stated that the corporation followed the due process of law. He further submitted that even if it is assumed that due process of law was followed by the Corporation and the suit stall has been re-installed, the Corporation cannot remove and/or demolish it without issuing a notice of 24 hours as held by this court in Sopan Maruti Thopte Vs. Shaikh Abdul Aziz and ors, AIR 1996 Bombay 304. 3. I perused the affidavit filed by the corporation dated 10.9.2008, wherein it has been specifically stated that after the suit stall was removed from the site on 21.1.2008, the plaintiff claimed the stall on payment of the redemption charges and the defendant-corporation released the same in favour of the plaintiff on 29.1.2008. That itself shows that the notice under section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act was served on the plaintiff and the Corporation had removed the stall :3: :3: :3: from the site where it was standing by following the due process of law. The Judgment relied upon by the counsel for the appellant would not help the appellant to protect the stall, if he has re-installed it at the same time. In the judgment it is clearly observed that if the corporation has followed the due process of law and demolished the unauthorised structure and/or extension, and if the same is reconstructed without valid permission within a period of one year, it would also be open to the corporation to demolish the same by giving a short notice of 24 hours, which corporation is expected to issue. Thus, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The Appeal from order is accordingly dismissed. The civil application is also disposed of accordingly. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)