IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.474 OF 2001 Narendra Bhalchandra Mantri, Age about 56 years, Occu – Service, of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant, Residing Mantri Wadi, S.V.Road, Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 064. ..... Petitioner V/s. 1. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, a Corporate Body duly constituted Under the B.M.C. Act, 1888, having its office at Mahapalika Building, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. 2. The Ward Officer, ‘P’ North Ward Municipal Corporation, Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 064. ..... Respondents Mr.R.R.Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr.K.N.Gaikwad, for the respondent – Corporation. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 06th MAY, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : - 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned notice issued under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The said notice was issued by respondent No.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no description of the 2 property has been given in the notice. It is submitted that even no area alleged to have been encroached by the petitioner, has been mentioned in the notice. Particulars regarding offending illegal structure has not been given in the notice. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submitted that the petitioner has failed to point out as to how the structure carried out by him is proper and occupation certificate has not been granted in view of the unauthorized construction. He further submitted that building completion certificate has also not been granted to the petitioner. 3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is having a remedy under Section 53(3) of the said Act, by way of making representation to the authority against the impugned notice issued under Section 53(1) of the said Act. 4. Considering the said aspect of the matter, we permit the petitioner to make appropriate representation to the authority within a period of six weeks from today. In the said representation, the petitioner may point out whatever his grievances in connection with the impugned notice. If any such representation is made within the aforesaid time, the competent authority shall take appropriate decision on such representation expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the receipt of the representation from the petitioner. The concerned authority 3 shall also hear the petitioner before taking any final decision on such representation and ultimate decision may be taken in accordance with law. The ultimate decision arrived at by the concerned authority may be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. Till the representation is decided, interim relief granted earlier in this petition against the impugned notice shall remain stayed. Such relief shall remain to continue for a further period of three weeks from communicating such decision to the petition in case such decision is against the petitioner. 5. Subject to what is stated above, the petition is disposed of. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )