1 fa1820 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1820 OF 2010 S.Albert S/O Sebastian Nadar ...Appellant vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Respondent Mr.Anil Singh i/b Mr.D.R.Shah for the appellant Mr.Vinod Mahadik for the respondent Mr.K.M.Vora, Sub Engineer (Project Officer,Dharavi), G/N Ward, present. CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 10,2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. One of the contentions raised by the appellant-original plaintiff is that though a reply dated 14 th July 2007 was filed to the notice dated 6th July 2007 issued under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act,1888, no order was passed on the said notice after considering the reply. The submission was that in view of the law laid down by this Court, the respondent-Corporation will have to pass a reasoned order. 2 The learned counsel for the respondent on instructions of the respondent states that an order was not passed on the basis of the notice. For perusal of the Court, he produced a report signed by the concerned Officer of the respondent-Corporation stating that before passing any order, the appellant rushed to the Court and therefore, speaking/reasoned order has not been passed. This Court made a query to the learned counsel for the respondent as to whether the respondent will pass an order. On instructions, he states that the Assistant 2 fa1820 Commissioner, G/N Ward will pass a necessary order. 3 The learned counsel for the appellant states that he may be permitted to file additional reply along with the documents. 4 Now the respondent has shown willingness to pass order on the basis of the show cause notice under section 351 of the said Act. The issue of legality of structure subject matter of the suit will be now decided by the Assistant Commissioner while passing the order. It is obvious that till the order is passed and communicated to the appellant, action of demolition of the disputed structure cannot be taken on the basis of the notice. 5 Hence, no purpose will be served by keeping the appeal pending. Accordingly, appeal is disposed of by passing the following order : i) Impugned Judgment and decree is quashed and set aside. ii)It will be open for the appellant to file additional reply to the notice dated 6 th July 2007 along with the copies of the documents relied upon by him with Assistant Commissioner, G/N Ward of the respondent-Corporation within a period of three weeks from today. The Assistant Commissioner shall pass an order in twelve weeks from the date of receipt of reply. iii)Till the order passed on the notice is communicated to the appellant, parties will maintain status quo as of today in respect of the disputed structure. iv)In the event, order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of the respondent-Corporation is 3 fa1820 adverse to the appellant, the order of status quo will continue to operate for a period of six weeks from the date on which the said order is communicated to the appellant. v) Issue of legality of the suit structure is expressly kept open. vi)The suit and the appeal is disposed of in above terms. vii)The parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. viii)Civil application no.4466 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of. ix)It is clarified that if the appellant fails to file additional reply within a period of three weeks from today, an order shall be passed after considering the reply which is already on record. JUDGE