1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2 OF 2010 Rama Samy Palany Samy ...Petitioner.. Vs. Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ....Respondents. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 131 OF 2010 Prabodh Balwantrai Bhuta ...Petitioner.. Vs. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. ....Respondents. ..... Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Sr.Counsel i/b Bharat Joshi, for the Petitioner in WP No. 2 of 2010. Ms. Sakira Shaikh i/b S.I. Memon, for for the Petitioner in WP No.131 of 2010. Ms. I.K. Calcuttawala, AGP for Respondent-State. Ms.G.S. Joglekar, for Respondent-M.C.G.M. Mr. Rajeev Agarwal, Applicant in person in Chamber Summons No.87 of 2010. ..... CORAM : J.N. PATEL, Acting C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 15th JUNE, 2010. P.C. 1] These Writ Petitions under Article 226 of Constitution of India are directed against the notices issued and action initiated under section 2 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 by the Planning Authority. 2] Parties have filed their affidavit-in-reply and rejoinders. 3] After having heard Shri Kamdar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2 of 2010 and Ms. Shaikh holding for S.I. Memon, for for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 131 of 2010 and party in person Rajeev Agarwal, we are of the view that it will not proper to go into the disputed question of facts in our appellate jurisdiction. It would not be proper to intervene at the stage when the notice is issued under section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 [for short ‘MRTP Act, 1966], particularly, when statutory scheme is clear. The Petitioner seeks an opportunity to satisfy the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai/Planning Authority with necessary documents and particulars that the work in question is not unauthorised. The party in person (Respondent No.2) asserts that the notice is legal and valid. 4] In our view, both Writ Petitions can be disposed of by permitting the Petitioner to approach the Planning Authority and invoke its jurisdiction under section 53 (3) of the MRTP Act, 1966. In the alternative, it would also be open to the Petitioner to satisfy the Authority that the work is not unauthorised and illegal. If an application is made in this regard 3 within a period of four weeks from today, the Planning Authority to consider it after hearing the Petitioner, so also Respondent No.2 and pass appropriate Orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of hearing. Needless to state that if the Petitioner does not approach the Authority within four weeks from today, the Impugned Notice stands and Municipal Corporation can proceed to implement the same in accordance with law. 5] Accordingly, both Petitions are disposed of. No costs. (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)