Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION(L) No. 1830 of 2008 with Chamber Summons No. 265 of 2008 Salim Babu Khan & others ...Petitioners V/s. The Bombay Municipal Corporation ...Respondent Mr. Rakesh Agrawal for the petitioners. Mr. N.A.Shaikh for respondents. Ms. Sunita Maurya i/b. S.B.Amin for the applicant. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Shaikh waives notice for the Respondent. As short question is involved, hearing is proceeded forthwith by consent. 2. During the pendency of this petition one Mr. Vasudev Ramji Keni and Chandrakant Ramji Keni have filed Intervention Application asserting that they are the owners in respect of the suit structure. That Intervention Application being Chamber Summons No. 265/2008 is also disposed off alongwith this petition. 3. The present petition takes exception to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner purported to be 2 under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The said show-cause notice-cum-order refers to structure situated opposite Vinay Industry, off Link Road, Near Gracy Compound, Malad (W), Mumbai-64. The case of the petitioners is that the said notice has been issued in respect of structure which is already a Censored House and certificate has been issued in that behalf by the Controller of Slums, Bombay as back as on 18-9-1980. The said certificate is in respect of structure situated at CTS No. 1084 at Chincholi Bunder Road, Malad(W), Mumbai-64 and the occupant thereof has been mentioned as Babu Khan Chote Khan. 4. The Corporation, however, contends that the said certificate produced by the petitioner pertains to some other structure. The basis of that assertion, as is argued before this Court, is that, the measurement of the structure referred to in the suit notice dated 15-7-2008 is entirely different from the measurement of structure mentioned in the certificate issued by the Collector dated 18-9-1980. 5. In my opinion, by no standard only measurement of the structure can be basis to distinguish the structure. Besides, the suit notice describes the structure in a vague manner as opposite Vinay Industry. That cannot be 3 said to be a valid notice for proceeding with the drastic action of demolition. Having realised this position, Counsel for the Corporation fairly accepts that in that case the Assistant Commissioner be allowed to issue fresh notice giving proper description of the structure in respect of which proposed action under Section 55 will be resorted to. That is a fair offer made on behalf of the Corporation. 6. Needless to observe that the larger issues raised by the petitioners that the Corporation has no authority to initiate action in respect of the structure in question, as it is censored being part of slum re-habilitation scheme, need not be addressed at this stage. All aspects in that behalf are left open to be decided at the appropriate stage as and when occasion arises. 7. Accordingly, this petition succeeds. The impugned show-cause notice purported to be issued under Section 55 dated 15-7-2008 is quashed and set aside with liberty to the concerned authority to initiate fresh action for the same cause of unauthorised erection of shed in the open space and proceed in accordance with law. Those proceedings will have to be decided on its own merits. 4 8. In view of this order, no further order is necessary in Chamber Summons filed by the applicants. The same is also disposed of on the same terms. 9. Order accordingly. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]