-: 1 :- rpwl-25/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 25 OF 2010. IN WRIT PETITION NO. 616 OF 2010 Sarvar Ali Sayyed Ali. ..Petitioner. Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. ..Respondent Mr. V. P. Sawant i/b Mr. S. M. Kambale for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Pakale for the respondent. Coram : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R. V. MORE, JJ. Date : September 6, 2010. P. C. : 1. On 11th March 2010, the Division Bench presided over by Justice J. N. Patel dismissed two writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition (L) No. 562 of 2010 and Writ Petition (L) No. 563 of 2010. The present review petition is filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No. 562 of 2010. Mr. Sawant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner submitted that following observations made by the Division Bench in paragraph no.4 of its order dated 11/3/2010 are incorrect qua his client. We may reproduce those observations. “4. .............. On going through the order passed by the respondent, after giving fresh hearing to the petitioners it has srp -: 2 :- rpwl-25/10 been found that none of the documents which have been produced by the petitioners go to show that the petitioners were in occupation of the structure prior to the datum line of T.P. Scheme i.e. prior to 1.3.1961 or for that reason 1.1.1995................” 2. Counsel drew our attention to the order of the Assistant Commissioner, G/North Ward impugned in the said petition. He pointed out that at serial no.4, Election I.D. Card of the petitioner was considered. The address shown on the Election I.D. Card is wrongly re- produced as G-1, 76 Mohammad Idu Manzil, Patra Shed, J.J. Road (West). Counsel submitted that in fact the Election I.D. Card bears the address as G-1, Sulekha Manzil, Wanzewadi Lane. Counsel submitted that the Assistant Commissioner took into consideration a wrong address and thus proceeded on a wrong basis. When this fact was pointed out to the Division Bench presided over by Shri. Justice J. N. Patel, the Division Bench in its order dated 8-4-2010 recorded the statement made by the counsel for the Corporation and directed that decision making authority will examine this aspect regarding the correctness of the address mentioned in the Election I.D. Card. The Division Bench then gave two weeks’ time to examine this aspect. Admittedly, the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, G-North Ward, BMC considered this aspect and has -: 3 :- rpwl-25/10 passed a fresh order on 19-4-2010. This is so stated by Mr. Devendra Kumar Jain, Assistant Municipal Commissioner in his affidavit. In view of the fact that fresh order is passed, it is not necessary to entertain the present review petition. It will be open to the petitioner, if he is so advised, to challenge the said order. Needless to say that the petitioner can raise all the contentions including the contention that the premises at Sulekha Manzil were in existence since prior to 1995, if he files any petition. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 3. Since the review petition is being disposed of the Office is directed to return the Original ID Election Card of the petitioner, which by the order dated 8th April 2010 was directed to be taken over by the Registry and kept in a sealed cover till the decision of review petition. 4. We note that copy of the impugned order dated 19/4/2010 has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner in Court. 5. If any protection was granted to the petitioner, it shall continue to operate for the period of four weeks from today. 6. Review petition is disposed of. (R.V. More, J.) (Smt. Ranjana Desai,J.)