ssp 1 WP(L) 2180 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2180 OF 2010 Western Prabhadevi (Flat Owners) Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. .....Petitioner versus The Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.P.J.Thorat i/by Mr.Kamlesh P. Mali, for the petitioner. Ms.V.S.Gharpure, for the respondent-Corporation. Mr.S.R.Saudagar, for respondent No.4. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 18 th NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. 1. As pointed by us, in our earlier order dated 15-11-2011, the respondent-Corporation has removed substantial constructed portion and area remains is only Deity over which there is a constructed portion and otla. The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that otla portion is lengthy one and if it is removed, it may damage the foundation of the structure. We are of the opinion that it was the duty of the Ward Officer to monitor the area so that somebody may not make unauthorized construction and obstruct the traffic. In view of the otla portion, even no vehicle can be passed through. 2. The learned counsel for respondent No.4, who has ssp 2 WP(L) 2180 of 2011 constructed a temple in an unauthorized manner, makes a statement that his client will not take any donation, nor any amount will be collected and he will not try to earn any income on the basis that a Deity is constructed in the area in question. He further states that no income or donation will be received and no Bhandara will be organized. 3. It is unfortunate that in the name of God, by placing a Deity attempts are being made to get donation and to receive income. Nobody has a right to commercialize the God and Goddess and in their name to earn profit in an illegal manner. It is very unfortunate that the respondent No.4 has tried to invite donations without any right in this behalf and tried to enrich himself, though the Deity which he has placed therein, is not treated as a Temple, nor it is a registered Public Trust. In this view of the matter, the respondent No.4 is restrained from collecting any amount and is directed to put a board at the site stating that no donations and amount will be accepted and nobody should offer the same. Since a Deity is already there, in view of the sentimental aspect of the people in area, people can offer their praying and worship the God, however, on that ground, the respondent No.4 should not enrich himself by putting donation box therein. The learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation submits that the Ward Officer will monitor this aspect regularly. Since the respondent No.4 has made a statement that he will ssp 3 WP(L) 2180 of 2011 be accept the donations or any money, the respondent No.4 is restrained from accepting the donation or Bhandara. 4. In future, if the Corporation is of the opinion that the extended otla portion can be removed without damaging the foundation, it will be open for the Corporation to act accordingly. The respondent No. 4 is directed not to carry out any additional construction and not to change the existing status quo at the site. As pointed out earlier, on the basis of the report of the Structural Engineer, if the respondent- Corporation is of the opinion that the extended otla portion can be removed without damaging the foundation, it will be open for the Corporation to do so in accordance with law. 5. Subject to what has been stated above, the writ petition is disposed of. Notice discharged. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)