Wpl 2251.11 1 SRS. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2251/2011 Hussain Abdul Karim Balwa and Ors. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr.T.Cooper a/w Mustafa Kachwala for Petitioner Mr.S.Kamdar,Sr.Adv.a/w Mr.C.S.Balsara, Mr.A.K.Millwala i/b Rahul Singh for Res.3 to 5 Ms.P.A.Purandare for BMC Mr.F.D’vitre,Sr.Adv.I/b M.S.Wadia for Res.6 Mr.D.A.Nalawade,GP for the State CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 23rd November,2011 P.C. 1 By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order/direction given by the Chief Minister of the Government of Maharashtra directing the Corporation to issue show cause notice to the petitioner for revocation of the Occupancy Certificate granted by the Corporation to the Petitioner in connection with the building in question. The said communication/order/direction of the Chief Wpl 2251.11 2 Minister is challenged mainly on the ground that the Chief Minister has given such direction to the Corporation during the hearing of the concerned respondents on the Lokshahi Din. The grievance jof the petitioner is that when the matter pertains to the civil rights of the party, such intimation given by the Chief Minister to the Corporation may have serious consequence as the Commissioner may act on the basis of such instructions given by the Chief Minister, even if the petitioners have not committed any illegality. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it is not open for the Chief Minister to adjudicate the rights of the parties unless the matter is taken up for hearing as per the provisions of the Act and after hearing both the parties. 2 On behalf of the State Government, learned G.P., after taking instructions states that the Chief Minister has made his stand clear that he has not decided the rights of the parties but merely given suggestion or opinion to the Commissioner with a view to see that Corporation may apply its mind on the issue in accordance with law. It is submitted that it is not the say of the Government that at the time of hearing some citizen during Lokshahi Din they may decide the dispute of civil nature. Wpl 2251.11 3 3 Mr.Kamdar, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 to 5 vehemently submitted that in a given case the Chief Minister has power to give direction to the Corporation as per the provisions of the Corporation Act. 4 It is not necessary for us to examine this issue at length as during the course of hearing it is pointed out by the petitioners that on the basis of aforesaid recommendation the Commissioner has examined the matter and reached the conclusion that no proceedings are required to be initiated against the petitioner, as the Corporation has given permission in accordance with law. In our view since the Commissioner has taken fresh decision which is in favour of present petitioner, this petition has become infructuous. 5 It is required to be noted that the stand taken by the Government Pleader is that no such direction is given by the C.M., but it is a recommendation. The stand taken today is that it is merely recommendation and the Commissioner has ultimately taken the decision which he deemed fit. In our view, if the concerned Wpl 2251.11 4 respondents are aggrieved by such decision of the Commissioner, it is open to them to take out appropriate legal proceedings in this behalf in accordance with law. We have not expressed any opinion on merits about the decision taken by the Commissioner, however, in view of what stated above, this petition itself has become infructuous, in view of the decision taken by the Commissioner. 6 The petition is accordingly disposed of subject to the aforesaid liberty granted to the concerned respondents. Notice discharged. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )