1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2576 OF 2009 Suman Shivaji Rathod. .. Petitioner. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. Vinay X. D'Silva for the Petitioner. Ms. M.S. Jagtap, AGP., for the respondent/State. Ms. G.S. Joglekar for Respondent/BMC. CORAM : J.N. PATEL, ACTING C.J. & B.R. GAV AI, J. DATE : 6TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C. Heard. 2. This petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 3. The petitioner is a owner of flat No. 12 situate at Bella - Vista C.H.S. Ltd., I.C. Colony, Holy Cross Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai. It is 2 the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court at Dindoshi, Mumbai for restraining her predecessor in title from evicting the petitioner from the said flat. Ad interim order is granted in her favour which is still in operation. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the predecessor in title of the petitioner filed several complaints with different authorities for the purpose of putting pressure on the petitioner to extract money other than that fixed under the agreement for sale dated 30.12.2008. Several complaints are also filed by the petitioner against Mr. Ratnasamy Elango i.e., predecessor in title for various offences including extortion, assault, etc., The same are under investigation/inquiry. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has received a letter from respondent no. 3 i.e. Assistant Municipal Commissioner, R-North Ward, Mumbai purportedly under Section 55 of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 alleging that the petitioner has constructed unauthorised shed on the terrace of the said flat. The petitioner has filed reply to the said impugned notice through her advocate with a request to tolerate regularise the alleged unauthorised work. However, no reply is given nor any decision has been taken by respondent no. 3. The petitioner states that the petitioner has visited the office of the respondent no. 3 and inquired about the fate of her advocate's reply. The concerned official in the office of respondent no. 3 informed the petitioner that they have received complaints from the predecessor in title of the petitioner i.e. Mr. Ratnasamy Elango in respect of 3 the notice structure and her request for continuation/regularization of the notice structure will not be considered and further informed the petitioner that the same will be removed without further notice. Hence the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned notice. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this Court may direct the respondent to consider regularisation of the subject structure in accordance with law. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation has drawn our attention to the fact that the said circular dated 17.8.96 which has been approved by the competent authority and, therefore, if at all the petitioner seeks any permission for temporary structure it could only be considered in accordance with provisions D.C.R. No. 65 of D.C.R., 1991. It is submitted that the impugned notice is given in accordance with the requirement of law which does not call for any interference. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the structure is existing since long, rather than acting upon the impugned notice, the petitioner can be given an opportunity to get his structure regularised by obtaining permission for the same strictly in accordance with D.C.R. No. 65 of D.C.R., 1991 under which the Corporation is now considering the grant of permission for such temporary structures. 4 9. We, therefore, direct the petitioner to seek permission/regularisation from the respondent nos. 2 and 3 by making an application along with the plan as required under D.C.R. No. 65 of D.C.R., 1991 within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. On such application being made, the respondents would take a decision in the matter within a period of four weeks after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order. In case the respondent Municipal Corporation rejects the application of the petitioner for permission/regularisation of temporary structure, it shall give fresh notice giving a clear 15 days time to the petitioner. 10. The petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (J.N. PATEL, ACTING C.J.) (B.R. GAVAI, J.)