1 AO-812-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 812 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1073 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1623 OF 2011 IN B.C.C.C. L.C. SUIT NO. 2237 OF 2010 Messrs De Zens Products ... Appellants (Orig. Plaintiffs) vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. ... Respondents (Orig. Defendants) Mr. Y.S.Jahagirdar, Senior Counsel a/w Mr.S.V.Doijode, Mr. Rishi Daulat & Mr. Hersh Acharya,Advocates, for the appellants. Mr.J. Reis, Special Counsel a/w. Smt. K.K.Soraan,Advocate for the respondent - MCGM. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 26th July, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the parties. 2. The appeal is preferred by the original plaintiffs against refusal of ad- interim injunction in second Notice of Motion No.1623/2011 taken out in L.C.Suit No.2237/2010. Earlier, Notice of Motion No.2432/2011 for almost same purpose 2 AO-812-11.sxw was rejected by the City Civil Court on 12.1.2011 after hearing the parties. Against that, the plaintiff had preferred A.O. No.283/2011. That appeal was also dismissed by this Court on 6.5.2011. In the said Notice of Motion the plaintiff had challenged the notice issued under Section 351 and the order passed thereon by the concerned Assistant Municipal Commissioner. The grievance of the plaintiffs was that they had entered into a contract with the Municipal Corporation under which they were allowed to spend money for beautification of Worli Sea Face Promenade and in view of that they were allowed to put up certain boards and display messages and information to the public that the beautification work was done by the plaintiff company. It appears that the said contract was terminated in the year 2002 and thereafter there was litigation between the parties. That suit was decreed and the notice impugned in that suit was set aside. Thereafter, the notice was issued by the Municipal Corporation on 26.7.2010 pointing out several breaches and violations of conditions under which permission was granted to him. The plaintiff was called upon to show cause why the permission should not be revoked or cancelled and why all the hoardings, advertisements should not be removed. That notice was replied by the plaintiff. After receipt of the reply, the Municipal Corporation rejected the reply and passed the order revoking the permission and also directed to remove the said advertisements/hoardings. That order was challenged in the first Notice of Motion 3 AO-812-11.sxw which was rejected and the appeal against rejection was dismissed by this Court. According to the plaintiffs, at the time of hearing of the Notice of Motion, a statement was made on behalf of the Municipal Corporation that the Municipal Corporation had no intention to give the rights of advertisement to any agency. Now, in the second Notice of Motion, it is contended that the plaintiff has collected several documents by exercising the right of information from the Municipal Corporation and it is revealed the Municipal Corporation had already taken a decision to call tenders/quotations for the purpose of giving advertisement rights in the said area. It is contended that a false statement was made by the Municipal Corporation at the time of hearing of the first Notice of Motion and therefore the Court was misled. It is contended that as the Municipal Corporation is again in process of giving rights of advertisement to some other party by calling tenders, the termination of permission granted to the plaintiffs was illegal and therefore the order passed under Section 351 was also wrong. In the second Notice of Motion, ad-interim relief was sought by the plaintiff which was refused by the trial Court and this is how the present Appeal is filed. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the Municipal Corporation, on instructions from Shri Sheikh Shabuddin Rafiuddin, Senior Inspector Licence, G/S Ward, B.M.C., makes a statement that even now the Municipal Corporation 4 AO-812-11.sxw has no intention either to call tenders or quotations for the purpose of giving licence for commercial advertisement rights nor Municipal Corporation has entered into any private negotiations with any party for the purpose of grant of such rights. 4. After perusal of the documents which the plaintiff claims to have collected by exercising right to information, I find that they are in the form of certain office notes from officers at different levels, but there is nothing to show that the Municipal Corporation has actually taken any decision. Learned Senior Counsel for the Municipal Corporation states that in case such a decision is taken, the plaintiff can also participate and submit tenders or quotations and in case any private negotiations are to be made, the plaintiffs will be also kept informed about the same so that the plaintiff may also participate. This statement should allay all the apprehensions of the plaintiff that he is being intentionally kept out from the said process. 5. After going through the reasons which were given in the notice dated 26.7.2010, I find that there were serious violations of the terms and conditions under which the plaintiffs were given permission to beautify the area and to put up small hoardings of the size 2' x 9" only for the purpose of giving messages or 5 AO-812-11.sxw the name of the company who had beautified. Those terms were taken into consideration by the trial Court while dismissing the earlier Notice of Motion and also by this Court while dismissing the appeal. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider each of those violations again in this matter. 6. In view of the above circumstances, I find no substance in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. 7. As the appeal itself is finally disposed of, C.A. does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)