wp(l) 2514.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2514/2011 Krishnadevi M.Kamathia & Ors. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr.S.Kamdar, Sr.Adv.i/b Bimal Rajsekhar for petitioner Mr.D.A.Nalawade, G.P.with Ms.G.R.Shastri, AGP for State CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 23rd November,2011 P.C. 1 By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the notices dated 18/8/2011 and 30/8/2011 by the State Government for recovery of the amount which according to the Government they are entitled to recover for carrying out the demolition of the Band. 2 Learned G.P. Submits that the Government carried out the said demolition work in view of the directions given by the Supreme Court in the matter which has gone up to the Supreme Court. It is submitted by the G.P. that the State Government subsequently tried to recover the cost which it has incurred for such removal as neither the petitioner nor his constituted attorney demolished the same as per the directions of the Supreme Court. The petitioner is the owner of the wp(l) 2514.11 2 disputed property which is subject to demolition. 3 Learned counsel Mr.Kamdar appearing for the petitioner states that though it is true that the notice under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is issued against the constituted attorney, the notice is also issued to the petitioner, wherein the address is shown as c/o the constituted attorney. According to him the State Government could not have issued such notice both to the petitioner as well as his constituted attorney, especially when the amount is already recovered from the constituted attorney which is the subject matter of the demand under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. 4 Learned G.P. states that no demand notice is issued to the petitioner nor any amount is now required to be recovered and therefore the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as there is no cause of action available to the petitioner, especially when the constituted attorney of the petitioner has already filed the petition on this very subject matter. 5 It is required to be noted that the notice at page 83 is wp(l) 2514.11 3 issued to the Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner Jayesh T.Shah. Learned G.P. states that on the basis of such notice no amount shall be recovered from the petitioner in connection with the liability in question. He further submits that in future, if any amount is to be recovered, appropriate proceedings will be filed and no action will be taken without following the due process of law. It is needless to say that ultimately if the State Government wants to proceed against the owner and wants to recover any amount in future, appropriate notice in the name of the petitioner will be issued and after hearing the petitioner appropriate decision will be taken. 6 Learned G.P. states that after issuance of the notice in question, the amount is recovered from the constituted attorney of the petitioner. Mr.Kamdar states that nothing survives in this matter. In view of what is stated above, the petition is disposed of. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )