* 1 * Cri.Appln-3595/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3595 OF 2010 Sanjay Anand Pawar ........ Applicant : V E R S U S : State of Maharashtra (at the instance of Charkop Police Station) ....... Respondent ********** Mr. H.V. Shekhawat, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for the respondent-State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 1st SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C. :- 1. This application is filed by a teacher apprehending his arrest in C.R.L.A.C. No.1458 of 2010 at the instance of Mumbai Municipal Corporation under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act. 2. The unauthorised construction that is alleged to have been carried out by the applicant in his residential flat consists of * 2 * Cri.Appln-3595/2010 demolition of internal brick masonry walls in bathroom and kitchen area, additions and alternations in flat by converting bathroom into kitchen and kitchen into bedroom and open passage between kitchen and hall into bathroom. By the notice dated 1st July 2010 issued under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation had called upon the applicant to remove the unauthorised construction and restore the premises to its original condition as per the plan approved by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation under No. CHE/A-2045/BP/WS/AR dated 28th October, 2002 within one month from the date of receipt of the notice. The applicant claims to have complied with the notice and alleges that despite compliance, he is being sought to be prosecuted. The application, however, does not even contain an averment that the unauthorised work has been removed by him and the premises restored to the original condition. At para-3(ii), all that the applicant has stated is that immediately after receiving the notice dated 1st July 2010, he started removing the unauthorised work alleged in the notice. On 3rd August, 2010 the applicant sent advocate s notice to the Corporation mentioning therein that he ’ * 3 * Cri.Appln-3595/2010 has reinstated the additions and alternations work . There is no “ ” material produced before this court to show restoration of the premises to its original condition. In the circumstances, in my opinion, this is not a case fit for exercise of special and discretionary powers of this court. Hence, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]