-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3449 OF 2009 Anand Nagar Co-operative Housing Society ... Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents Mr. Girish Godbole, instructed by Mr. Sidharth Ronghe, for the petitioner. Mr. A.B.Vagyani, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.1. Mr. Vineet Naik for respondent No.2. Mr. Niranjan P. Shimpi for respondent No.3. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE: APRIL 06, 2010. P.C. By this petition, the petitioner, which is a co-operative housing society, has prayed that second respondent-Corporation should take appropriate action for removing the unauthorised construction which, according to the petitioner, is allegedly carried out by Respondent No.3 and they should comply with the statutory obligation provided under Section 478 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949(BPMC Act). 2. The petition is resisted by the second respondent Corporation by filing reply wherein a stand is taken by the Corporation that alleged construction is in the private property and, therefore, the Corporation cannot -2- take any action. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, submitted that the construction is not unauthorised. He further submits that in the petitioner’s property also there is unauthorised construction carried out by the petitioner for which no permission of the Corporation is taken. 3. So far as the issue involved in this petition is concerned, this Court is not required to adjudicate whether the construction is unauthorised or not as the said aspect is required to be considered by respondent No.2-Corporation. Considering the said aspect, we direct respondent No.2-Corporation to take appropriate action as provided under the Act, if it is found that the construction carried out by respondent No.3 is contrary to the provisions of the BPMC Act and Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). Similarly, if respondent No.3 makes any grievance to the Corporation regarding the unauthorised construction put up by the petitioner without the necessary permission from the Corporation, the Corporation may similarly act on the said basis against such construction. This aspect is entirely left to the decision of the Corporation and we only direct the Corporation to act in accordance with the provisions of the BPMC and MRTP Acts to demolish unauthorised construction, if any. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, whether the construction is unauthorised or not. That aspect is to be decided by the Corporation after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and after hearing the concerned party who is likely to be affected by the decision of the -3- Corporation. The Corporation is directed to act expeditiously in this behalf. We once again reiterate that we have not expressed any opinion and we have also noted the argument of Mr. Godbole, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner has not carried out any construction in their property. 4. Subject to what is stated above, the petition is disposed of. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.G. KETKAR, J.