1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5411/2006 Smt. Budhabai wd/o Guruprasad Girijapure and another ..vs.. The Addl. Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- R. V. MORE, J. DATED :- 28 th January, 2008. 1. Heard Mr. Bade, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Parsodkar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None appears for respondent No. 3, though served. 2. The petitioners challenge notice dated 25.02.2006 issued by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 289 (1) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 and consequential orders passed in the appeal and revision. 3. Mr. Bade, leaned counsel for the petitioners submits that the above said notice is not in consonance with the Division Bench Judgment in Gajanan Ramraoji Ambagovind and others ..vs.. Corporation of the City of Nagpur and 2 others, 2006 (4) Mh. L. J. 789; inasmuch as the authorities have not recorded subjective satisfaction as to whether the entire building needs to be demolished or whether any particular portion of the building need to be demolished and the building or part thereof cannot be allowed to be occupied by merely causing repairs to the same. 4. Mr. Parsodkar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 does not controvert the above said statement of Mr. Bade, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and agree that the above said notice dated 25.02.2006 be quashed and set aside with liberty to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take appropriate action afresh after hearing the petitioners and considering the entire material on record. 5. In that view of the matter, I dispose of the petition by passing the following order:- (i) Notice dated 25.02.2006 is quashed and set aside. Needless to mention that in view of the fact that the notice is quashed and set aside the consequent orders dated 08.06.2006 and 18.10.2006 passed by the appellate authority and revisional authority respectively which are impugned in the present petition do not 3 survive. (ii) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are granted liberty to consider the petitioners' case afresh and take appropriate action after hearing the petitioners and considering the material on record. (iii) The writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE kahale