1 W.P.No.311 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 311 OF 2010 Noor Mohammed Khatri ... Petitioner Versus Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and others. ... Respondents Mr. Rajiv Patil with Mr. Sachin Punde for the Petitioner. Mr. K.K. Singhvi, senior advocate with Ms. S.M. Modle for BMC. Mr. Bipin Joshi for respondent No.3. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 12TH JULY, 2010 P.C. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus and to direct the respondent-BMC through the Commissioner to initiate and conclude an enquiry for disqualification of respondent No.3 from Municipal Councillorship. 2. The petitioner is invoking the provision of section 16(1D) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 on the ground that the respondent No.3 has put up an unauthorised construction. In support of his contention, the petitioner has relied upon the show-cause notice 2 W.P.No.311 of 2010 dated 8th May, 2009 at Exhibit `A-2' issued to the owner/occupier of Room No.2, Plot No.102 of Javahar Nagar. Goregaon (West), Mumbai. The petitioner's grievance is that there is inaction on the part of the Municipal Corporation and Municipal Commissioner in not taking any action for disqualification and not making any reference to the learned Judge, Small Causes Court under section 18 of the MMC Act, 1888. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the question whether the construction in question is unauthorised or not is yet to be decided and, therefore, the petition is premature. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 also raised the same contention. He further submits that the construction in question was not put up by respondent No.3 but by the owner of the concerned property. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, without going into the merits of the controversy, we direct that respondent-Municipal Corporation shall take decision on the show-cause notice dated 8th May, 2009 at Exhibit `A-2' as expeditiously as possible and in any case within two months from today. 5. The petitioner also relies on the order dated 19th September, 2009 by the Assistant Commissioner, P/South Ward informing the owner/occupier of Room No.2 that no satisfactory and conclusive 3 W.P.No.311 of 2010 proof/documentary evidence was submitted to show that the construction in question was an authorised one. The Assistant Commissioner has, therefore, directed the owner/occupier of the offending construction to remove the same within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. The said communication was served on 24th October, 2009. The owner of the property has submitted representation to the Assistant Commissioner. According to the respondent No.2 Municipal Commissioner, the owner of Room No.2 has made a representation to the Assistant Commissioner contending that the structure in question was assessed prior to 1961-62. The case of the Corporation, therefore, is that the matter is going to be looked into by the competent authority for necessary orders. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and without going into the merits of the controversy, we direct that the competent authority shall take decision on the representation made by the owner of Room No.2 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within two months from today and depending on the outcome of the said decision, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall take further necessary action in accordance with law. If it is found that the construction in question was unauthorised and that the same was put up by respondent No.3 or his 4 W.P.No.311 of 2010 spouse or his dependent, further necessary action shall be taken under sections 16/18 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. 7. We are informed that in compliance with the order dated 14th June, 2010, the respondent No.1 has already deposited the cost of Rs. 10,000/- for delay caused in filing the affidavit-in-reply. Let the amount of Rs.10,000/- be paid over to Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority for the High Court Mediation Centre. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.