IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O.C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.2023 OF 2009 Dorab Dhun Randeria & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents. ....... Ms.S.S. Patil i/b. P.S. Gidwani for the Petitioners. Ms.T.H. Puranik for Respondent No.1. Mr.V.A. Madan for Respondent No.5. ...... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. November 23, 2009. P.C.: The challenge in these proceedings is to an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, A-Ward of the Municipal Corporation, directing the Petitioners to reduce the size of the weather frame and glow sign board upto the frontage of the shop, towards the northern side. A direction has also been sought against Respondent Nos.1 to 4 for the restoration of the sign board and weather frame as it existed prior to a demolition which took place on 12nd September 2009. The Municipal Corporation has filed an affidavit in reply. It has been averred therein that a complaint was received from M/s.Katariya Stationer Mart about the sign board of the Petitioner and that the weather frame projected on their shop. Upon receipt of the complaint, the site was inspected by the officer and an inspection report was prepared. It was observed that the weather frame put up has projected on the adjoining shop of Mrs. Katariya Stationer Mart and the length of the weather frame is more than the permitted size. A notice for the forfeiture of the security deposit was issued to the Petitioner followed by a notice for revocation of the projection licence of 31st January 2009. The Petitioner submitted its representation on 3rd February 2009. A personal hearing was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner, A-Ward on 25th March 2009 when the representatives of both the adjacent shops owners, the Senior Inspector of Licence and Licence Inspector were present. By a letter dated 3rd March 2009 the Petitioner stated that they had reduced the size of their weather frame upto the permitted size and also effected payment of a fresh Security Deposit. Another complaint was received on 4th July 2009 from the adjacent shop owner that the Petitioner had reduced the size of weather frame from the other side and the frame still projected on the shop of the complainant. The site was inspected again by the Senior Inspector of Licences on 20th June 2009 and the complaint was found to be substantiated. A proposal was submitted to the AM C (City) on 25th August 2009 and a notice was issued to the Petitioner on 11th September 2009 furnishing twenty four hours’ notice to restrict the size of the weather frame /glow sign board by one meter. Upon the Petitioner failing to do so, removal action only on the extended size of the weather frame/glow sign board was taken on 12th September 2009. In view of the what has been stated in the affidavit in reply, no case for interference has been made out. The sign board of the Petitioner is found to have been projected on the shop of the adjacent shop owner and was removed after a notice to show cause and an opportunity of being heard was granted to the Petitioner. In any event, action has already been taken. No case for interference is made out. The Petition is dismissed. .....