-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 161 OF 2009 M/s Prachar Communications Ltd. ).. Petitioners Versus The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & ) Transport Undertaking and others ).. Respondents Mr R A Dada, Senior Advocate, with Mr Chetan Kapadia i/b N S Thacker for the Petitioners. Mr Harinder Toor with Mr D G Dhanure i/b M V Kini & Co. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Ms Anjali Joshi for Respondent No.4. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED : 27TH JANUARY 2009 P.C. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties at some length. We are of the considered view that the controversy involved in the present Writ Petition squarely falls within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court rather than under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The contention raised on behalf of the Petitioners is that in -2- face of the provisions of Section 527 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, statutory notice is essential. However, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 3, upon instructions, submits that they would not raise the issue of notice in regard to maintainability of the Suit and its entertainment by the Civil Court. 3. In view of the above statement, we dispose of this Writ Petition and relegate the Petitioners to the remedy of Civil Suit in accordance with law. Writ Petition disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.