Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2475 of 2008 Smt.Aminabai Ismail Patel ...Petitioner V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. ...Respondents Mr.U.V.Singh for the petitioner. Mr.M.A.Shaikh for the respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 24th October, 2008 : 24th October, 2008 : 24th October, 2008 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the parties. Mr.M.A.Shaikh waives notice for respondents. By this writ petition, petitioner prays that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner , R South Ward dated 30-9-2008 calling upon the petitioner to remove the Gatai work Stall (Bhongi) which belongs to the petitioner situated at Mathurada Road and on the Naka of Bhogilal Padia Road failing which the same would be demolished as unauthorised stall in terms of Section 314 of the Mahanagarpalika Act. 2. Briefly stated the petitioner was allowed pitch whereafter the petitioner applied for Gatai Kamgar License. While applying for that license, the petitioner claimed that she belongs to Muslim Mochi 2 caste. However, complaint was received by the authority that the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to Muslim mochi caste is false. For that reason show-cause notice was issued by the authority on 2-9-2008. In response to the said show-cause notice petitioner by Advocate’s reply offered explanation on 13th September, 2008 and amongst others asked for three months time to produce all the relevant documents in support of her caste claim. No intimation was received by the petitioner as to whether her request for further time was accepted by the authority or rejected. Instead the petitioner was served with the communication dated 30-9-2008 issued under the signature of Senior Inspector (License), R South Ward and in reply to which she filed present writ petition. 3. Two fold grievance has been made before this Court. Firstly, that no sufficient or reasonable time was given to the petitioner to produce the relevant documents. Secondly, no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. In so far as later submission is concerned, Counsel for the respondent submits that in the Scheme of proceedings stipulated by the Mahanagarpalika Act, there is no question of giving personal hearing to the petitioner. Be that as it may, the fact remains that after the petitioner had sent reply in writing on 30-9-2008 and in particular asked 3 for three months time to produce relevant documents, no intimation was given to the petitioner either way and instead the Senior Inspector (Licence) straightway proceeded to issue order calling upon the petitioner to remove the structure in question. That is unacceptable. It would be a different matter if the authority had informed the petitioner that his request for three months time as prayed cannot be granted and that the petitioner may file relevant documents within time prescribed by the Corporation. No such communication was sent. Whereas the authority proceeded to decide the issue on the finding that the petitioner has failed to produce any document within the prescribed time. In my opinion, therefore, the action of the respondents in particular as is shown in the order impugned in this writ petition cannot be sustained. The same is therefore, quashed and set aside with liberty to the authority to proceed with the enquiry in accordance with law while giving sufficient and reasonable time to the petitioner for filing relevant documents such as caste certificate issued by the competent authority. 4. The petitioner through Counsel submits that the petitioner would be able to submit those documents within two months from today. That assurance is accepted. If the petitioner fails to produce relevant 4 documents within two months from today before the appropriate authority, the appropriate authority would be free to pass such orders as may be advised. However, if the petitioner is able to produce relevant documents within two months time from today, the authority may consider the efficacy of those documents and pass appropriate order as may be permissible by law. All questions in that behalf are left open. It is made clear that the authority shall take final decision in the matter not later than three months from today. Petition disposed of on the above terms. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]