1 cr-wp-1369-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.W.P. NO. 1369 OF 2010 Mrs. Shabnam w/o Imam Hassan Siddique ..Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr. Ram B.Upadhyay i/b M/s. Law Competere Consultus for petitioner Mr. S.R.Pasbola along with Smt. Seema Rawade Adv. for respondent no.1-M.M.C. Smt.A.A.Mane APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 19, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-original accused and the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation. 2 The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order issuing process against the petitioner under Sections 390 r.w. 471 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as "M.M.C.Act"). The process was issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 41st Court, 2 cr-wp-1369-10 Shindewadi, Dadar, Mumbai by order dated 29.1.2004 in Case Nos. 4103652/SS/08, 4103675/SS/ML/08, 4106854/SS/ML/08, 4103653/SS/ ML/08 and 410634/SS/2009. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that prior to this notice, notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 341 of M.M.C.Act wherein it was stated that the petitioner had unauthorizedly erected a room on the terrace of the building no.56, 11th lane, Kamathipura, Mumbai-400 008. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that he challenged the said notice by filing L.C. Suit No. 275 of 2007 before the City Civil Court at Mumbai. In the said suit, by order dated 11.2.2008 the Corporation was directed to maintain the status-quo in relation to the suit structure. He submitted that once the Court had granted status-quo in relation to the structure, a notice could not have been issued by the Corporation under Section 390 r.w. 471 of M.M.C. Act. He further submitted that this complaint under Section 390 r.w. 471 of M.M.C. Act has been filed only with a view to harass the petitioner as the petitioner had made complaints against the officers of the Corporation. 5 The learned counsel for the respondent no.1-corporation has pointed out that present complaint is under Section 390 r.w. 471 of M.M.C. Act and it has nothing to do with the premises being 3 cr-wp-1369-10 unauthorized for which a notice was earlier issued under Section 351 of M.M.C. Act. He submitted that present complaint is in respect of the petitioner running a Regzine Bag factory with mechanical power with electric metre. The five complaints show that different number of workers were working in the said premises in the manufacturing unit. The case of the respondent no.1-corporation is that this unit is being run without requisite permission as required under the Act. 6 On perusal of order dated 11.2.2008, it is noticed that the stay has been granted by order dated 11.2.2008 only in respect of the structure. It is further noticed that on reading the said order, the learned Judge has proceeded on the premise that the said structure is a residential structure which is seen from the observations in the order that if the M.M.C. is allowed to go ahead with the demolition of the suit structure, the plaintiff would be roofless. At no point of time, the petitioner pointed out to the Court that it was a manufacturing unit. The said order is only in respect of demolition of the structure and it has nothing to do with the running of the manufacturing unit in the said premises. In the order, there is no reference at all to any status-quo in relation to the running of the unit but it is only in relation to demolition of structure. Thus, these complaints under Section 390 r.w. 471 of the M.M.C. Act have no connection with the earlier notice under Section 4 cr-wp-1369-10 351 and it is on an entirely different ground that these complaints have been filed. 7 At this stage, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that he had preferred an application for grant of licence to run manufacturing unit, however, the said application has been rejected, thereafter, these complaints have been filed on the ground that the structure is unauthorized. Obviously, as the licence has not been granted to the petitioner, petitioner cannot run the manufacturing unit in the said premises and hence, in my opinion, the M.M.C. was right in lodging the complaints against the petitioner. Moreover, the learned counsel for the respondent-corporation pointed out that the evidence in all five cases is almost over. In view of the above facts, no case is made out for quashing of the process. Petition is rejected. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]