1 mss OSWPL+2799 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2799 OF 2010 SHOBHA DAGADU SAKPAL & ANR. .. PETITIONERS Vs. THE MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPN. & ANR. RESPONDENTS Mr. M.M. Vashi i/b M/s. M.P. Vashi & Associates for the petitioners Ms. K. R. Punjabi for the respondent for R-1 & 2. CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & RANJIT MORE, JJ. DATED: 23/12/2010 P.C. This petition was moved before the Division Bench presided over by Justice P. B. Majmudar. Since Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 916 of 2010 filed by one Mahesh Tukaram Vengurlekar and others, who had complained that the present petitioners who were respondents 3 and 4 therein had carried out some illegal construction, was disposed of by this court, the Division Bench by its 2 mss OSWPL+2799 order dated 21/12/2010 directed that ‘it should be placed before the same Bench, which has passed the order on 5/10/2010. Accordingly this petition is placed before us. 2. We have heard Mr. Vashi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Mr. Vashi drew our attention to paragraphs 6 and 7 of our order dated 5/10/2010, they read as under: “6. The above paragraphs make it clear that it is the case of the Corporation that the water storage tank has been illegally put up. Respondents 3 and 4 could not show that they have obtained any permission for erection of the water tank. If the Corporation finds that there is any illegal construction, the Corporation is duty bound to take action and remove it, if necessary. We direct the Corporation to take steps in accordance with law so far as the illegal water tank is concerned. So far as the alleged construction in the passage of the building is concerned, it is stated to be a safety hazard. The Corporation shall inspect the same and, if any such construction is found, it shall take steps in accordance with law. 3 mss OSWPL+2799 7. Removal of unauthorized construction has to be done expeditiously and, in any case, within a period of six weeks from today.” 3. Mr. Vashi contends that in our writ jurisdiction it will not be open for us to give an affirmative direction to the Corporation to demolish any illegal construction of water tank. We wish to make it clear that it was the stand of the Corporation that the construction of water tank in question was unauthorized. We made it clear to the Corporation that, if it is its stand that the construction is unauthorized then the Corporation is duty bound to demolish the same. Our order was directing the Corporation to do its legal duty, if it is its case that the construction is illegal. If any impression is sought to be created by any parties, we wish to clarify that we have not passed any order of demolition. Needless to repeat that the Corporation is duty bound to take action against unauthorized construction. 4. Before parting, we would like to also observe that the original petitioners in Writ Petition (L) No. 916 of 2010, on whose complaint the Corporation had taken action, ought to have been made parties in this petition, which is not done. We take strong exception to this conduct of the present petitioners. We are informed by learned 4 mss OSWPL+2799 counsel for the Corporation that the original petitioners in Writ Petition (L) No. 916 of 2010 have filed a contempt petition. Those proceedings should have also been produced before us. 5. With the above observation the petition is disposed of. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)