1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 98 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 149 OF 2010 Mr.Brijmohan C. Gupta ... Appellant v/s The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Navin Parekh i/by Ms.Hetal Patel for the appellant. Smt.K.K.Soraan for the Corporation. Mr.Md. Parveez Alani for respondent No.6. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 9TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the Trial Court refusing to grant any relief to the appellant on the notice of motion filed by him. 2. The appellant has filed a suit before the City Civil Court for a declaration that the no objection certificate dated 12.3.2007 granted by defendant Nos.1 to 5 to 2 defendant No.6 for putting up a hoarding on the terrace of the B building of Hawa Hira Mahal buildng, Pushpa Park, Service Road, Malad (East), Mumbai, is illegal. A declaration is also sought to the effect that the subsequent acts of defendant No.6 of affixing an iron and steel frame of 40’ x 20’ on the terrace of aforesaid building and exhibiting the advertisement thereon are per se, illegal, arbitrary, malafide, null and void ab initio, non est and not binding on the plaintiff. Certain injunctions are also sought by the plaintiff. 3. It is the case of the appellant that show cause notices have been issued to defendant No.6 by the Corporation in the year 2007 in respect of the hoardings erected by it. No action has been taken by the Corporation in respect of these notices. As a result, the hoarding of the appellant is affected by the hoarding put up by defendant No.6. According to the appellant/plaintiff, his hoarding cannot be viewed as it is obstructed by the hoarding put up by defendant No.6. 4. Mrs.Soraan, appearing for the Corporation submits that, after the issuance of the notices in the year 2007, admittedly, no hearing was given either to defendant No.6 or to the appellant/plaintiff. She submits that, subsequently further notices have been issued in the year 2008 to 3 defendant No.6 in view of the hoarding being erected in breach of the new policy guidelines for erection of hoardings. She submits that the Corporation will afford a hearing to both defendant No.6 as well as the plaintiff in respect of the hoardings and pass appropriate orders. 5. Mrs.Soraan, on instructions from Mr.Mawade Maroti Ganapati, Advertiser Inspector, P/N Ward, of the Corporation, who is present in Court, states that the Corporation will give a hearing to both the appellant and defendant No.6 in respect of notices issued on 23/26.3.2007, 31.5.2007, 29.7.2008 and 18.10.2008. 6. Parties shall appear before the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Special), on 25.2.2010 at 11.00 a.m. for a personal hearing. No further notice need to be issued to either party. 7. The hearing will be completed within a period of four weeks from today and appropriate orders be passed within two weeks thereafter. 8. The learned advocate appearing for respondent No.6 reiterates the statement made on behalf of respondent No.6 4 that it does not intend to erect any further hoardings which would obstruct the view of the hoarding of the plaintiff. 9. Appeal from order stands disposed of accordingly along with the civil application. ..... 5