ssp 1 WP (L) 2311 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2311 OF 2011 Milind Shailesh Desai .....Petitioner versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ..... Respondent Mr.V.R.Tripathi i/by M/s.V.R.Tripathi and Associates, for the petitioner. Ms.Komal Punjabi, for the respondent. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE: 20 th OCTOBER, 2011 P.C. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice issued by the Corporation under Section 53(1) of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. The petitioner has carried out development and changes as pointed out in the said notice. The petitioner was asked to remove unauthorized development regarding which particulars have been given in the notice. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in response to the said notice, a reply/representation has already been made on 15-10-2011 which is at Exh.39. It is submitted that at least his representation may be decided before taking any action. In this matter, whether the petitioner has carried out development work in violation of ssp 2 WP (L) 2311 of 2011 the sanctioned plan is required to be dealt with by the Corporation as per the available material. Since the petitioner has already made a representation, the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, D Ward, Mumbai, may dispose of the petitioner’s representation and for that purpose, hearing may be given to the petitioner. The petitioner may initially appear before the concerned officer on 01-11-2011between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. The said Officer may thereafter give date of his convenience to the petitioner and may take appropriate decision in connection with the representation made by the petitioner. Whatever may the decision, that may be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. Till the Assistant Municipal Commissioner takes appropriate decision, status quo prevailing as on today may be maintained. If the decision of the Assistant Municipal Commissioner is against the petitioner, he can take appropriate recourse as available in law. 3. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )