1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 54 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2601 OF 2009 Shree Laxmi Vijay Industrial Premises Co-operative Society Limited ..Petitioner. v/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & ors. ..Respondents And Laxmi Industrial Estate ..Applicant .... Mr. Anil Singh i/b. Anil Yadav for applicant in NMW 54/2010. Mr. R.S. Apte, Sr. Advocate a/w. S.K. Chaturvedi i/b. Chaturvedi & Associates for the petitioner. Ms. Trupti Puranik/BMC for respondents 1-3. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 23RD FEBRUARY 2010. P.C. This notice of Motion is taken out by Laxmi Industrial Estate-Applicants in the above Writ Petition, which was disposed of by an order of this Court dated 20th January, 2010. The applicants seek re-call of the order dated 20th January, 2010 on the ground that this Court has in the operative part of the order inter-alia directed as under:- 2 "(iv) In view of the order passed by this Court dated 25th November, 2009 in Writ Petition No. 2291/2009, the Executive Engineer, Building Proposal (W.S.), 'K' Ward, Bandra, Mumbai shall not insist on the no objection certificate from the owner." 2. It is pointed out on behalf of the Applicant that earlier an order dated 23rd April 2009 was passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court directing that the Corporation may consider the regularization proposal of the Petitioner without insisting for NOC from builder/developer as there is already a decree in favour of the Petitioners. It was further directed that if, in the meanwhile, the decree is stayed, the Corporation may not proceed with the regularization of proposal. It is further pointed out on behalf of the Applicant that by an order of the Learned Single Judge of this Court, the decree dated 27th July, 2009, has been stayed. It is submitted that though the Learned Single Judge has clarified that the grant of interim-relief to the Applicant will not preclude the Respondents from applying for regularization of mezzanine floor in the building, it would not mean that the application so filed by the Petitioner could be considered by the Corporation without hearing the Applicant or in the absence of a NOC issued by the Applicant. 3. The Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that infact no NOC is required from the Applicant and that he has no objection if the Corporation hears the Applicant on this issue and also allows the Petitioner to point out, that no NOC is required from the Applicant to consider the Petitioner's application for regularization of the loft/mezzanine floor in the industrial 3 gala. In view thereof, by consent of the parties, clause (iv) of my order dated 20th January, 2010 is substituted by the following: "The Corporation shall pass fresh orders on the regularization proposals submitted by the Petitioner after hearing the Applicant. The Petitioner shall be entitled to contend before the Corporation at the time of such hearing that the Applicant has no locus to be heard and that the Petitioner does not require any No Objection Certificate or consent from the Applicant for the purpose of deciding the application pertaining to regularization of the loft/mezzanine floor in the industrial gala purchased by the Petitioner." 4. It is also clarified that if any Application/s filed by the Petitioner is already disposed of by the Corporation on the basis of clause (iv) of my earlier order dated 20th January 2010 i.e. without hearing the Applicant the same shall stand set aside and fresh orders will be passed in the same after hearing the Applicant. Notice of Motion is accordingly disposed of. [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]