-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 222 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 222 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 222 OF 2008 ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 268 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 268 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 268 OF 2008 IN IN IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 222 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 222 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 222 OF 2008 1.M/s. Hoogly Ink Company (Bombay) Limited,& one anotheer .. Appellants. V/s. 1. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents. --- Mr. R.M. Haridas for the Appellants. Mr. Gerualsing - the appellant- in-person-present. Mr.Hiralal Thacker, Sr.Advocate with Mr. J.F. Daruwalla for the the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. J.J. Xavier for Respondent No.1. --- CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED : 07th APRIL, 2008. DATED : 07th APRIL, 2008. DATED : 07th APRIL, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. :- . Considering the averments made and after hearing both the parties, I am of the view that this is not a case where the court should wait further in view of the report of the Commissioner which is annexed to the affidavit filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 dated 1st April, 2008. The relevant portion of the Commissioner’s report dated 7th of January, 2008 in regard to dangerous condition on site, is reproduced as under : -: 2 :- "DANGEEROUS CONDITION ON SITE :- . The site conditions shows that the person who has executed the unauthorised work of mezzanine has excavated the ground to provide foundation to the R.S.sanction (6"x3") Just touching T.W. post P1 (see plan attached). This has led to the sinking of the T.W. post P1 by about 1 inch and as such the T.W. beam (19"x13") which was taking commercial loading on a span of 14"-6" to 15"-0", is made to span 29’-O" which is a point of danger. This may bring down the building as also may result in the loss of human lives and in case of school loss of precious lives of students." 2. The submission that the Corporation ought to have given decision to the reply filed by the original plaintiff -appellant herein is in no way acceptable. The decision as cited of this court dated 2nd December, 2002 in Appeal from Order No. 998 of 2002, is not at all applicable. In a normal condition it is expected that the Corporation should decide such reply to the notice under section 354 (A). In the present case, the -: 3 :- plaintiff himself moved the suit immediately within three days from the receipt of the impugned notice without waiting for the decision of the Corporation. 3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff makes a submission that he will demolish the notice structure within four days from today, failing which the corporation is at liberty to take action and remove the notice structure in accordance with law, without waiting for further notice. The plaintiff/ appellant himself is present in the court and gave undertaking that the appellants will remove the said structure within four days. The undertaking is accepted. The appellant to demolish notice structure as early as possible to avoid the loss of human lives. 4. In view of this, nothing survives in this present Appeal against the order and in the civil application as well. 5. The A.O. alongwith the Civil application is disposed of accordingly. (Anoop V.Mohta, J) .....