1 Anando IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2519 OF 2009 M/s.Hotel Sudesh & anr. ..Petitioners V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater ..Respondents Mumbai & ors Mr.U.P.Warunjikar i/b.Mr.V.M.Bhate, Advocate, for the Petitioners Ms.V.S.Gharpure, Advocate, for Respondent No.1 Mr.Vinod Jadhav i/b.Mr.V.D.Patil, Advocate, for Respondent No.2 Mr.A.A.Mirza, Advocate, for Respondent No.3 CORAM : J. N. PATEL & C. L. PANGARKAR, JJ. DATE : 4TH MARCH, 2010 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioners seem to be aggrieved by the fact that only two premises have been shown instead of three premises in the list prepared by the Additional Collector (Encroachment/Demolition), Mumbai Suburban 2 District. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that his client would make representation to the Additional Collector (Encroachment/Demolition), Mumbai Suburban District, with regard to the existence of third premises. If such an application is made before the Additional Collector (Encroachment/Demolition), Mumbai Suburban District by the present Petitioners, the Additional Collector(Encroachment/Demolition), Mumbai Suburban District, shall decide the said application and representation of the Petitioners in accordance with law and within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this Order. The Additional Collector (Encroachment/Demolition), Mumbai Suburban District, shall give an opportunity to the Petitioners of being heard before passing an Order. The Petitioners to communicate the Order to the Additional Collector, (Encroachment/Demolition), Mumbai Suburban District. 3 3. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. (J. N. PATEL, J.) (C. L. PANGARKAR, J.)