1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2493 OF 2007 Seenen Yakub Khandwani .. Petitioner Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Shweta Doshi for the petitioner Ms.A.K.Savla for respondent nos.1 to 6 Mr.P.D.S.Rao i/b M/s.K.R.P.Legal for respondent nos.7 Ms.Neeta Solanki i/b M/s.Kiran Jain & Co. for respondent nos.8 Mr.R.J.Mane, A.G.P. for respondent nos.9 CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL & & & K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED : 25TH AUGUST, 2008 DATED : 25TH AUGUST, 2008 DATED : 25TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C.: 1. The petitioner has approached this court for a writ of mandamus particularly against the respondent Corporation respondent nos.1 to 6 directing them to take action against the hoarding raised by respondent no.8 on the terrace of the 2 building named as Three View consisting of ground + 4 upper stories on land bearing C.S.No.1040, Street Nos.515A and 517 and assessed under Municipal G Ward Nos.2943(2), 2944 at Veer Savarkar Marg, Opp.Century Bazaar, Bengal Chemicals, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner owns the right to put up an advertisement of the respondent which is conferred by a conveyance from the builder who constructed the building and for which the petitioner has a decree in his favour in Short Cause Suit No.108 of 1984 which has been disposed of by the City Civil Court at Bombay by judgment and order dated 30.11.06. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent Municipal Corporation is not permitting them to erect an hoarding in exercise of their right to do so by refusing permission on the ground of amended guidelines particularly clause 16(1) which provides that not more than one hoarding per 400 sq.mtrs. 3 of terrace area shall be permitted on any building terrace. However, the consent of the flat occupier of the top most floor will be a must, in addition to resolution of the CHS. 4. In our view, this court need not exercise its Writ Jurisdiction in the matter as the petitioner can very well execute the decree obtained by the petitioner particularly the City Civil Court and thereby exercise their right to raise the hoarding by complying with the terms and conditions laid down in the judgment and order. 5. We are informed that the appeal is pending against the said judgment and decree. If that is so, then if there is no stay to the judgment and order passed by City Civil Court in the appeal, there is no legal impediment in the way of the petitioner to execute the decree. In so far as the other interest and rights of the other parties are concerned, they are at liberty to adopt the same at appropriate forum as they all arise from a commercial contract awarded to respondent no.8 by respondent no.7 society which according to the 4 petitioner is in total violation of the decree obtained by the petitioner from City Civil Court. We therefore, dismiss this petition with liberty to the parties to seek remedy available to them under the law. 6. Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( K.K. TATED, J ) ( K.K. TATED, J ) ( K.K. TATED, J )