ssp 1 NMW 679 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.679 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.211 of 2006 Ashok N. Naik .....Petitioner versus Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors. ..... Respondents Ms.Sindha Shreedharan, for the petitioner. Ms.Shobha Ajeet Kumar, for the Corporation. Mr.Bipin Joshi, for respondent Nos.2 to 4. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR& ANOOP V. MOHTA,JJ. DATE: 20th DECEMBER,2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing in the matter. As back as in the year 2006, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the above writ petition by finding that no fault can be found with the respondent- Corporation. The Division Bench has considered the affidavit filed by the concerned Officer. Though, the above Notice of Motion is filed in the year 2006, it is circulated after a period of four years. In the meanwhile, a Judge who has passed the order in the writ petition (Shri F.I.Rebello, J.), has already been transferred as a Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court. The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation states that no false statement was made in the affidavit, as notice under Section 53(1) of the ssp 2 NMW 679 of 2006 Act, was given for the purpose of unauthorized change of user from residential to commercial one and in the said notice, it has not been mentioned that the said construction is an unauthorized construction. In our view, now it is too late to consider the prayer made in the notice of motion since more than four years have passed. Though the above notice of motion is filed as back as in the year 2006, but considering the say of the learned counsel for the Corporation, this is not a case in which this Court would like to take any action as suggested by the petitioner in the Notice of Motion. If the petitioner has any other grievance in this behalf, he can take appropriate proceedings as per law. In a petition which is disposed of in the year 2006, no relief can be given to the petitioner by way of this notice of motion. 2. In view of what is stated above, the notice of motion is rejected. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )