1 1025.11-wp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1025 OF 2011 Roopchand Karnani. ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. Anoshak Davar i/b. Ubiquity Juris for the petitioner. A.S.Gadkari, A.P.P. for the respondent-State. Ms.Seena Rawde respondent Nos.2 and 3. Sudhir Hardikar for respondent No.10. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED : 5th September 2011. P.C. : In terms of order dated 21st April 2011, the petitioner wanted to proceed only against respondent Nos.2 and 3. Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the grievance made in this petition is already taken note of by the officials of respondent corporation, as a result of which, notice under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act has already been issued to the occupants of the disputed structure. However, the said occupants have now approached the City Civil Court challenging said notice issued by 2 1025.11-wp the Corporation. In view of the submission, counsel for the petitioner prays for disposal of this petition with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedy as and when occasion arises as the Corporation has assured to take the notice issued under section 351 of the Act to its logical end. He further submits that the petitioner may also consider of appearing in the proceeding before the City Civil Court. 2. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the grievances made by the petitioner in the present petition. The petitioner is free to pursue his remedy before appropriate forum. All questions in that behalf are kept open. Petition is disposed of accordingly. ( P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)