1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7312 OF 2009 Shri Girish Pravinchandra Mehta & Anr. : Petitioners versus Asstt. Engineer, Mumbai Municipal Corporation, and others : Respondents Mr A A Kumbhakoni a/w Mr M B Shirsat for the Petitioners. Mr. A Y Sakhare, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr R A Malandkar for the Respondent No.1. Mr. K R Belosey a/w Mr D D Belosey for the Respondent No.3. Mr. P P Kakade, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.2 & 4. Mr. R R Mishra for the Respondent No.7. CORAM : S B MHASE & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 6th October 2009 P.C. 1. The above Petition has been filed for quashing the directions issued by the Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 2.2.2009 and for challenging the stop work notice dated 5.2.2009 issued by the Respondent No.1. The said notice is consequential to the letter dated 2.2.2009. Shri P P Kakade, the learned AGP appearing for the Respondent Nos.2 & 4 tenders a letter dated 16th September 2009 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government, Urban Development Department wherein it has been stated that the stay granted by the 2 Government in respect of the amalgamation of Flat Nos.11 and 12 has been vacated. In view of the said letter of the Under Secretary, nothing survives for consideration in the above Petition as regards the aforesaid challenge. 2. However, by our order dated 8th September 2009 we had directed the Respondent No.1 as well as the Municipal Commissioner to file affidavits in terms of the directions as contained in the said order. Accordingly the affidavits have been filed by the Deputy Chief Engineer of the Municipal Corporation as well as the Municipal Commissioner Shri Jairaj Phatak. In the said affidavits it has been interalia stated that the permission for amalgamation of flat Nos.11 and 12 has been granted taking into consideration the certificate issued by the Structural Engineer of the Petitioners which certificate has also been annexed to the said affidavits. The said certificate has been issued by one Structural Concept as regards the structural stability. At the foot of the said certificate it has been mentioned that Flat Nos. 11 & 12, Munidarshan Co-op. Hsg. Building Jagdusha Nagar, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai is safe and stable for the purpose for which it is intended. Since the Municipal Corporation has deemed it fit to accept the said Structural Stability Certificate and since the Municipal Corporation is the authority for granting permission 3 under the MMC Act as well as MRTP Act, we leave the issue to the discretion of the Municipal Corporation. 3. On behalf of the Respondent No.3, the said certificate is sought to be questioned as also it is sought to be contended that the Respondent No.3 is the party who is likely to be prejudicially affected if the amalgamation is allowed to be carried out. We are informed that the Respondent No.3 has already filed a suit in which interim relief has been refused by the concerned Court. It would therefore be open for the Respondent No.3 to prosecute the said suit. It would also be open to the Respondent No.3 to approach the Municipal Corporation with his grievances if so permissible in law with the necessary material in support. In the event the Respondent No.3 approaches the Municipal Corporation, we expect the Municipal Corporation to consider the Application/Representation made by the Respondent No.3 in accordance with law. 4. As mentioned herein above, in view of the letter dated 16th September 2009, the above Petition does not survive and is accordingly disposed of as such. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [S.B.MHASE, J]