skc 1 WP-2466-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2466 OF 2011 Kanyabai Mohanlal Mali ..Petitioner versus The Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar and Khushnuma Khan i/b. K. K. Associates for Petitioner. Mr. M. M. Malvankar for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S. R. Shinde - Additional Government Pleader for State – Respondent No. 3. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. 10 October 2011 P.C. : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the State – respondent no. 3. 2. Writ petition is directed against the order dated 8th February 2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, K/East Ward, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. The following facts are not in dispute : skc 2 WP-2466-11 3. Competent authority – respondent issued notice dated 29th January 2011 under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act to the petitioner. However, pursuant to the said notice since the petitioner failed to submit / produce any documentary evidence to prove the authorisation of the subject structure prior to 1st April 1962 (date fixed for commercial structures) or copy of the approved plan sanctioned by the competent authority, the petitioner was informed to remove the unauthorised structure mentioned in the notice dated 29th January 2011 within seven days from the date of receipt of the order / letter dated 8th February 2011 failing which the petitioner was also informed that the same will be demolished by the staff of the Corporation. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner could not submit the documentary or other evidence to establish the above referred fact within a cut off date mentioned in the notice dated 29th January 2011 issued by the Corporation, however after the cut off date the petitioner submitted those documents before the competent authority on 8th February 2011, i.e. the date on which the impugned order came to be passed. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the impugned order dated 8th February 2011 came to be passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the part of the subject structure came to be demolished by the staff of the skc 3 WP-2466-11 Corporation on 15th February 2011 without considering the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner before the competent authority on 8th February 2011. Counsel for the petitioner therefore contended that the Corporation may be asked to reconsider the issue on the basis of the documentary evidence placed by the petitioner afresh and take a decision in this regard. 5. Counsel for the respondent – Corporation has submitted that the impugned order came to be passed and demolition had taken place. The petitioner inspite of opportunity given to her failed to submit / produce documentary evidence to prove authorisation, however, if the petitioner has submitted the requisite documents to prove the authorisation as required in law on 8th February 2011, the claim of the petitioner in this regard shall be reconsidered on the basis thereof in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard on its own merits within a period of ten weeks. 6. In the backdrop of the above referred facts particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent – Corporation, it is not necessary to issue any direction in this regard in the present writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to file additional documents, if necessary, within a period of four weeks from today. skc 4 WP-2466-11 7. In the circumstances, petitioner is granted liberty to file additional documents, if she so desires, within a period of four weeks from today. The statement has already been made by the counsel for the respondent – Corporation that the issue will be considered on the basis thereof within a period of ten weeks from the date of submission of those documents. Hence, no direction in this regard is necessary. 8. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)