A. S. OKA, J, J.

( 1 ) BY order dated 28th February, 2006 passed in the Notice of Motion No. 108 of 2006 we had directed that this Writ Petition will be listed for final hearing alongwith Notice of Motion. Accordingly, we have taken up this Petition for final hearing.

( 2 ) BY this Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India the Petitioner has taken exception to orders dated 11th February, 1994 passed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner of the first respondent- Mumbai Municipal Corporation by which the the Applications made by the Petitioner herein and twenty-seven other persons whose names appear in exhibit A to the Petition for regularisation of their structures/stalls were rejected.

( 3 ) THE Petitioner has filed this Petition by invoking provisions of order 1 Rule VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In prayer (a) of the petition, the Petitioner has sought leave to file this petition on behalf of himself and on behalf of all stall owners mentioned in Exhibit A to the Petition who are twenty-eight in number.

( 4 ) THE case of the Petitioner is that the petitioner and twenty-seven other persons were having stalls at Vikroli Park Site. In the year 1976, the said stalls were demolished for road widening and in accordance with the policy of the first Respondent, the said persons were allotted alternate pitches at shivaji Nagar, Govandi. According to the case of the petitioner allotment of the pitches was made in the year 1982 by a letter signed by Ward Officer. According to the case of the Petitioner, the allotment of the pitches was approved by the first Respondent- corporation in the year 1986. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner and other stall holders constructed stalls on the pitches allegedly allotted to them without obtaining prior permission of the first Respondent.

( 5 ) THE stall holders were served notices under section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 on 02nd July, 1987. Being aggrieved by the notices under Section 351 of the said Act of 1888, the stall holders filed suits in the City Civil Court and prayed for temporary injunction. In the said suits the City Civil Court passed an order directing the second Respondent-Deputy Municipal Corporation to give hearing to the stall holders and to pass a speaking order. Accordingly, after giving hearing to the stall holders the second Respondent passed an order dated 02nd August, 1888 holding that there was no allotment of pitches to the stall holders and the construction made by the stall holders was totally unauthorised. He directed the stall holders to remove the construction. Amendment was carried out to the suits for the purposes of incorporating challenge to the said order of demolition. Notices of Motion taken out by the stall holders in these suits were dismissed by a common order dated 19th December, 1988 passed by the city Civil Court. The stall holders preferred separate Appeals to this Court challenging the order rejecting Notices of Motion. By Judgment and Order dated 22nd and 23rd November, 1993 this Court dismissed the Appeals. Thereafter, the stall holders applied to the second Respondent for regularisation of their structures on the basis of the observation made by this Court while dismissing the Appeals. The order impugned in this Petition was passed on the applications made by the stall holders. The grounds given for rejection of Applications for regularisation in the impugned order dated 11th February, 1994 are (i) that the allotment letters were obtained fraudulently, (ii) the structures were affected by 200 ft. vide Development Plan Road and (iii) the structures were unauthorised.

( 6 ) ONE Prakash J. Patil, Assistant Commissioner of first Respondent has filed affidavit-in-reply opposing the Petition. It is submitted in the reply that the allotment letters are fraudulently obtained by the stall holders and therefore, stall holders have no right, title and interest in respect of the pitches.

( 7 ) S