1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1199 OF 2001 Shridhar G.Shirdhankar .. Petitioner V/s The Assistant Engineer (Building & Facts) G/N Ward, Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni for the Petitioner. Ms.S.M.Modle for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.R.J.Mane for Respondent No.4. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. By this petition the petitioner challenges two notices issued by the Corporation, one for removal of the tarpauline shed and the other for removal of toilet block. So far as tarpauline shed is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that he had put it on because of rainy season and that he himself removed it. So far as toilet block is concerned, he submits that, that toilet block was already in existence when the Town Planning Scheme came into force. He submitted a representation to the Corporation in that regard which has not been decided by the Corporation. 2. The learned counsel for the Corporation states that so far as 2 Tarpauline shed is concerned, it has already been removed by the Corporation. The learned counsel for the Corporation however is not aware whether the toilet block has been removed or not. 3. Since the notice is of February 2001 and the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation pointing out as to how the toilet block is an authorised structure as it is in existence for a very long time, in our opinion it would be appropriate only to issue a direction to the Corporation not to remove the toilet block pursuant to the notice dated 20th February, 2001, but if the Corporation intends to remove the said toilet block the Corporation may do so only after giving fresh notice to the petitioner and that too in accordance with law. 4. Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)