1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5122 OF 2009 Muttichukaran D. Jose ..Petitioner versus Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. J. S. Chandnani for Petitioner. Mr. Vijay Patil for Respondent No. 1. Mr. C. R. Sonawane – AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 – State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 25, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 2 and 4 - State. 2. So far as the grievance of the petitioner in respect of the action of the respondents pertaining to road widening work is concerned, the grievance no more survives in view of the statement made on behalf of the respondent 2 no.1 in the affidavit dated 18th June 2009, particularly in paragraph 3, which reads thus:- “I say that the said Respondent No. 1 Corporation has no intention of disobeying the said order. I say that P.W.D. Department of the Corporation wanted to carry out certain works near the site mentioned in the Petition in regard to repairs of gutters in view of the ensuing monsoon. I however say that no work was carried out in the Petitioner’s property. It appears that the Petitioner apprehended that the work would be carried out in his property also and therefore issued notices dated 7.4.2009 and 9.4.2009. I however submit that as of now, the Corporation does not intend to carry out any kind of work in the Petitioner’s property. In case, the Corporation requires the Petitioner’s land for 80 ft. D. P. Road, the Corporation would acquire the said land from the Petitioner by following due process of law. I therefore submit that the apprehension of the petitioner that the Corporation will carry out the work of road widening in the Petitioner’s property, without following due process of law, is misconceived. I also deny that the officers of the Respondent No. 1 are guilty of violation of the order passed by this Honourable Court on 2.5.2005. I say that the Corporation or its officers have no intention of whatsoever nature in violating the said order.” 3 Hence, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly keeping the prayer made in prayer clause (d) open with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority for expediting those proceedings. (D. D. SINHA, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)