... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.2015 OF 2005 Bhagwan Namdeo Awakirkar ...Appellant Vs. The Municipal Corpn. of Gr.Mumbai ...Respondent Mr D.D. Belosay for the Appellant. Mr J.J. Xavier for the Respondent. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : APRIL 04, 2006. DATE : APRIL 04, 2006. DATE : APRIL 04, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. On last date the submissions of the Advocates appearing for the parties were heard. Today further submissions are heard. The Appellant is the original Plaintiff. The dispute is regarding a stall admeasuring 20ft. X 5ft. The Appellant approached the Civil Court as according to him the Officers of the Respondent-Municipal Corporation threatened to remove the stall. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit. 2. The learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that though the Appellant is not in a position to produce any document to show that the suit stall was constructed after obtaining valid permission of the Competent Authority, it is a fact ... 2 ... that stall is in existence from the year 1995. He submitted that the Appellant is a handicapped person and he is carrying on a business in the stall which does not require any municipal licence. He submitted that as the stall of the Appellant was in existence as on 01st January, 1995, the same deserves to be protected in accordance with the policy of the State Government. 3. Shri Xavier appearing for the Respondent submitted that suit stall is governed by the order passed by the Apex Court relating to hawkers in city of Mumbai and therefore, no interefernce can be made. 4. I have considered the submissions. Admittedly, there is no permission granted by the Competent Authority to erect the suit stall. The Appellant has not placed reliance on any policy of the State Government during the pendency of the suit in the Trial Court. The Appellant claimed no right on the basis of the policy of protecting certain structures which were in existence on 01st January, 1995. ... 3 ... 5. Even according to the case of the Appellant, the suit stall was removed by the Officers of the Respondent-Corporation on three occasions in the past and thereafter the Appellant re-constructed the same. If this is the position, no fault can be found with the decree passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the Appellant-Plaintiff. 6. Hence, Appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs. 7. At this stage, the learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant is a handicapped person and he is carrying on business in the suit stall for a long time. He submitted that the Appellant desires to make a representation to the appropriate authority either for tolerating the suit stall or for allotment of a pitch elsewhere in the city. He submitted that to enable the Appellant to make suitable representation and obtain appropriate order from Competent Authority, the structure of the Appellant may be protected for a reasonable time so ... 4 ... that in the meanwhile the Appellant is not deprived of his livelihood. The prayer made by the Advocate appearing for the Appellant is opposed by the Advocate appearing for the Respondent. 8. Considering the fact that the Appellant is a handicapped person and is carrying on business for some time, time of six months deserves to be granted to enable the Appellant to take appropriate steps. It is made clear that no further extension will be granted. 9. Hence, it is directed that notwithstanding the dismissal of the Appeal, the Respondent-Corporation will not demolish the suit stall till 07th October, 2006. It is made clear that during the said period, the Appellant will not part with possession of the stall and will not create any third party interests in respect of the suit stall. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE