1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1344 OF 2006 PETITION NO.1344 OF 2006 PETITION NO.1344 OF 2006 Januben Shyamji Gedia..Petitioner Vs. The Municipal Commissioner..Respondent Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Mr. Piyush Shah, for the Petitioner Ms. A.K.Savla, for the respondent CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: F.I. F.I. F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE: DATE: DATE: 27TH NOVEMBER,2006 27TH NOVEMBER,2006 27TH NOVEMBER,2006 P.C. . The petitioner’s claim for photo-pass was earlier rejected. The petitioner filed Writ Petition bearing No.461 of 2003 along with Writ Petition No.474 of 2003 which were disposed of by this Court on 16th February, 2004. In para.12 it is clearly held that the petitioner is not entitled for protection and was given one year to vacate subject to filing usual undertaking. Thereafter L.P.A. came to be filed which was withdrawn on 5th April, 2005. The contention of the petitioner now is that thereafter the petitioner was given a photo-pass which has been cancelled in the year 2005 by order dated 10th October, 2006. The contention raised iss 2 that she was not given any hearing. The order dated 10th October, 2006 would indicate that the photo-pass was obtained fraudulently by the petitioner. The order also indicates that the petitioner was given a hearing on 18th November, 2005 in the office of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner. Apart from that, after the order of this Court dated 16th February, 2004 the petitioner’s claim stands rejected. Considering the above, petition dismissed. (F.I. F.I. F.I. REBELLO, J) REBELLO, J) REBELLO, J) (ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA J). V. MOHTA J). V. MOHTA J).