ssp 1 WP 551 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.551 OF 2011 Indira Shankar Aiyar and Anr. .....Petitioners versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ..... Respondents Mr.R.M.Vanoo i/by Mr.I.R.Qureshi, for the petitioners. Ms.V.S.Gharpure, for the respondents. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 18 th NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned notice issued by the respondent-Corporation dated 16-06-2010 issued under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act and a letter issued on 16-10-2010 in respect of alleged construction by way of acrylic sheet placed by the petitioners on the outer windows of the drawing room and kitchen of the flat in question. 2. The Corporation has filed an affidavit-in-reply dated 06-04-2011, wherein it is averred that the petitioners have carried out construction of unauthorized plastic/acrylic sheet on framework, MS Pipe, angles on part open terrace of Flat No.3. The photographs of the nature of the constructions carried out by the petitioners are also placed on record. ssp 2 WP 551 of 2011 Considering the nature of the construction, in our view, no fault can be found with the notice issued by the respondent-Corporation, as the petitioners are not authorized to carry out such construction. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only in order to protect the open portion from the garbage being thrown away by the upper floors, such construction is carried out. In this regard, it will be open to the petitioners to put plastic sheet without the support of the angles and MS pipe and if any plastic sheet is placed, the Corporation may not object for putting such plastic sheet as there may not be any dispute about getting the additional FSI. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he will replace the existing angles and MS pipe by appropriate plastic cover and it will not be placed by placing any angles or MS pipes. 3. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is rejected. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)