IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1335 OF 2008 Rupinder Kaur Gupta & Anr. ... Petitioners V/s. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation & 5 Ors. ....... Respondents ---- Mr.J.Reis with A.C.Singh, Swapnil Bongur i/by D.R.Shah for the petitioners. K.K.Singhvi, Sr.Advocate with A.Y.Sakhare Sr.Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr.A.V.Anturkar i/by P. C.Kansara for respondent nos.2 to 5. ---- CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATE : 16th JUNE, 2009. P.C. 1. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 has stated before us that the respondent nos.2 to 5 have applied for regularisation of the structure and sanction to the modified plan of the building which is subject matter of this petition. Learned Counsel for respondent no.1 further submits that if the petitioners have any objections to those proposals and all other objections raised in the present proceedings, the petitioners are free to raise those objections before the BMC and those objections will be considered in accordance with law. The statement is accepted. The Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 5 states that he should be entitled to raise objection to the petitioners’ objection being outside scope of Section 53 of MRTP Act and/or areas looked into by Corporation before notices under Section 33 are issued. In view of this statement, in our opinion, the following order will meet the ends of justice :- O R D E R 1. Respondent nos.2 to 5 shall furnish a copy of the proposal submitted by them to the Corporation which is referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 in his statement recorded above to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from today. The petitioners shall be entitled to raise all objections that they may have to the proposal of respondent nos.2 to 5 as well as other objections raised by petitioners in these proceedings. It is clarified that the respondent nos.2 to 5 will be entitled to argue that the objections raised by petitioners are beyond scope of Section 53 of MRTP Act and/or such objections have been already considered by Corporation and therefore should not be reopened. A copy of the objections raised by the petitioners shall be supplied by them to respondent nos.2 to 5. Respondent nos.2 to 5 shall be entitled to submit their point of view to the respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 thereafter shall pass order on the proposal submitted by the respondent nos.2 to 5 and the objections raised by the petitioners in accordance with law and communicate it to both the parties. Parties shall be at liberty to adopt appropriate remedy in relation to that order in accordance with law. 2. Till the objections and proposal is decided as directed above, parties shall maintain status-quo as it existed at the time of passing of interim order. However, this will not come in the way of respondent nos.2 to 5 applying to the Corporation for putting weather sheds and Corporation considering that application in accordance with law. Respondent nos.2 to 5 in case, they make any application of weather sheds, shall serve a copy to the petitioners. The petitioners shall be at liberty to raise any objections which they may have. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 states that the matter will be considered by the Executive Engineer (Building proposal) and that authority will pass the order within four weeks from today. 4. By this order, the petition, all Motions and Chamber summons stand disposed off. ( D.K.DESHMUKH, J. ) ( R.S.MOHITE, J. )