1 W.P.640/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 640 OF 2010 Taranath Sunder Shetty ).. Petitioner versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ) and others ).. Respondents Mr. R.S. Datar for the Petitioner. Mrs. Geeta Jogalekar for Respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr. Manoj J. Bhatt for Respondent Nos.6 and 7. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 6TH JULY 2010 P.C. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for writ of mandamus to direct the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (i) to forthwith hear and decide the petitioner’s complaints dated 4th February 2009, 13th February 2009 and 12th March 2009 in respect of what the petitioner contends as the liability of respondent No.6 to be disqualified under section 16(1)(1D) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and (ii) to take action of demolition against the illegal construction carried out by respondent Nos.6 and 7 at the premises in question. 2 W.P.640/10 2. The learned Advocate for respondent Nos.6 and 7 states that the said respondents have not put up any illegal construction and that whatever construction is considered by the petitioner as illegal, for regularization of that construction the owner of the premises has already made an application to the Municipal Commissioner on 14th June 2010 through the Architect of the owner. 3. In view of the above, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction that the Municipal Commissioner or his delegate being Executive Engineer, Building Proposals Department shall decide the application/ representation dated 14th June 2010 of the owner of the premises in question made through their Architect Mr.Ramesh Dalvi as expeditiously as possible and in any case within one month from the date of receipt of this order. 4. Depending upon the outcome of that exercise, the Municipal Commissioner shall thereafter take up the petitioner’s complaints/ representations dated 4th February 2009, 13th February 2009 and 12th March 2009 and if it is found that still there is dispute about the legality or otherwise of the construction, such dispute shall be referred to the learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court under Section 18 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. 5. In case it becomes necessary to decide the petitioner’s complaints/representations as indicated above, the Municipal Commissioner 3 W.P.640/10 shall give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and decide the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months. 6. In view of the above, nothing survives in the present writ petition and the same stands disposed of accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.