1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION LOD.NO.1203 OF 2008 Span Engine Cooling Systems Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. .. Petitioners Versus Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Zubin Behramkamdin with Vivek Vashi i/b. Bharucha & Partners for petitioner Ms.A.G.Joshi for BMC CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 2nd May 2008 P.C. . This petition is directed against the orders which have communicated by two notices dated 19th March 2008. These are rejection notices for Unit Nos.16-B and 16-C. 2. It is contended that these units along 2 with others, details of which are set out in petition, cannot be termed as mezzanine floors but are lofts. In any event, the petitioners state that they are existing for quite a number of years and, therefore, it is not as if they need to be demolished straight away. There are policies of tolerating and regularising such portions/floors and the petitioners had approached authorities with such request. When they were communicated that certain documents are necessary and relevant for the purpose of considering their request, even those documents have been forwarded. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents are insisting upon No Objection Certificate from the landlord/owner but the petitioners being members of cooperative societies and the land owner having not executed a conveyance in favour of the society, there is a dispute which is pending in that behalf. Considering the dispute and the allegations therein, it is unlikely that the landlord/owner 3 will cooperate. However, there are other documents which are duly produced and forwarded. However, the proposal has been rejected without any opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate their case or affording any hearing to them. 3. Learned Advocate appearing for Corporation denies this position and submits that once the petitioners approach them for regularisation, then, the said proposals must be considered within the ambit and scope of the existing and relevant policies. If the petitioners desire regularisation, then, they must comply with the requisitions of the authorities in that behalf. The authorities have been communicating to the petitioner all through out and have set out their requirements with regard to the documents and papers. It is as a last resort and when the petitioners are not coming forward that two notices were issued with regard to Unit No.16-B and 16-C. However, there 4 are proposals forwarded with regard to other galas and the same are pending. It is not as if the Corporation is not willing to consider the request. 4. Upon instructions Ms.Joshi makes a statement that Director (EEBP) who is high ranking officer in the employment of the Corporation would now consider the request for regularisation with regard to all units irrespective of whether any adverse communication has been despatched or received by the petitioners and they would also be given an opportunity to put forward their case and plea so also substantiate the same. 5. In the light of the statement made on instructions of Mr.Pednekar (Sub-Engineer), who is present in the Court, it is directed that the petitioner shall appear before the concerned authorities on 8th May 2008 at 11.00 a.m. and 5 the said authority to then consider the request by giving all opportunities to the petitioners and pass appropriate speaking orders afresh with regard to all units, uninfluenced by any earlier communication or order. He must do so within a period of four months from the date of first appearance i.e. 8th may 2008. 6. In the meanwhile, the Corporation has assured the Court that no demolition of the subject lofts or mezzanine floors would be undertaken. Needless therefore, to state that the orders/notices impugned in the petition stand quashed and set aside. All contentions of both sides are kept open and no opinion is expressed with regard to the proposal submitted by the petitioners. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)