- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.853 OF 2008 Saeeda Shabbir Nalwala. .. Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondents -- Shri V.Mannadiar, Advocate i/b M/s.Mannadiar & Co. for the Petitioner. Mrs.S.M.Modale, advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri Rashid Khan alongwith Ms T.Zaidy, advocates i/b Zaidy & Co. for the Respondent No.2. -- CORAM : SRI R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & SRI A.A.SAYED, JJ DATED : 25TH JULY, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard. By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the Corporation to follow the rules and regulations in respect of the constructions/alterations/additions on the 5th Floor of the petitioner’s building. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Corporation had infact issued a notice for demolition of some construction on 8th April, 1999 but no action has been taken in that regard. The petition however discloses a categorical averment that sometime in 1999 the first respondent on - 2 - the complaint of the petitioner demolished the illegal bathroom and W.C. block constructed on the terrace by the second respondent. It also discloses an allegation to the effect that the illegal room which was constructed on the terrace was left untouched by the Corporation. It further discloses an averment that the second respondent thereafter reconstructed the bathroom and W.C. block and yet no action has been taken by the Corporation. 2. Undisputedly, the alleged illegal construction of the room was done in the year 1999 and it has remained without being demolished by the Corporation till this date. Undisputedly, as per the allegation of the petitioner, the alleged bathroom and W.C.block were demolished in the year 1999. However, the same have been reconstructed by the Respondent No.2. The petition further nowhere discloses as to when such reconstruction was done. The fact remains that, apart from making mere complaints to the Corporation about such alleged illegal construction on the terrace of the petitioner’s building, no legal action on the part of the petitioner herself has been taken against the Respondent No.2 for removal of the alleged illegal construction. There is no explanation forthcoming from the petitioner for such inaction for all these - 3 - years. Once it is disclosed that the Respondent No.1 Corporation had taken some action pursuant to the complaint regarding the alleged illegal construction by the Respondent No.2 and if it was to the knowledge of the petitioner that some of the alleged illegal structure was left out without being demolished, besides the Respondent No.2 had carried out the alleged illegal reconstruction, it is not understood as to why the petitioner did not approach the Civil Court for necessary action inspite of the fact that the building belongs to the petitioner. The laches and the failure to explain inaction on the part of the petitioner to take appropriate steps in the matter are more than sufficient to refrain ourselves from exercising the writ jurisdiction in the matter. It is also informed across the bar that there is already a dispute pending in another Court regarding the tenancy claim of the Respondent No.2 as also in relation to the assessment regarding payment of taxes by the petitioner to the Corporation. It obviously discloses that the petitioner is fully aware about the procedure which she can adopt in case of any illegality comes to her knowledge. 3. In the circumstances aforesaid, in the absence of any explanation for delay in approaching the Court - 4 - as well as inaction on the part of the petitioner to take appropriate action for removal of the alleged illegal construction in her property for all these years, we do not find this is a fit case to interfere in writ jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, rejected. ( R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J ) ( A.A.SAYED, J )