R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.: - Admit. By consent heard forthwith. 2. The appellants challenge the order dated 1 - 2 - 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 439 of 2006 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition which was filed by the appellants against the order passed by the Commissioner on 24 - 1 - 2006. The Commissioner, by the said order had dismissed the revision applications filed by the appellants against the order dated 25 - 10 - 2005 passed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner in the appeals filed by the appellants challenging the order/notice issued under section 289(1) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948.

3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that; a notice - cum - order dated 128 - 2005 hereinafter called as "said notice" came to be issued to 31 occupants of a building situated in City Survey No. 3231 along with owner of building the respondent No.8. By the said notice, in exercise of the powers under section 289(1) of the said Act, the addressees of the notice were required to demolish the building on the ground that the same had become old and the walls and roofs of the building were in dilapidated condition and could collapse at any time during the rainy season and that in order to avoid the probable danger to the human life, it was necessary to demolish the said building and that the notice for demolition of the building was already issued to the owner of the building. Being aggrieved by the said notice, the appellants who were 10 addressees of the said notice filed appeals against the said order before the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, who after hearing the parties dismissed the said appeals while holding that demolition could be carried out of the portion of the building which is in dilapidated condition. The matter was carried in revision by the appellants and while confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the Additional Commissioner directed to dismantle the dilapidated portion of the building in order to protect the life of the occupants. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred the writ petition which came to be dismissed after hearing the parties. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. Drawing attention to sections 289(1) and 288 of the said Act, the learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the said notice issued under section 289(1) was without any basis for arriving at the conclusion about the building being in a dangerous state and that thereafter, being required to be demolished and without considering the aspect of retaining the building by causing necessary repairs. According to the learned advocate for the appellants the said fact apparently discloses that there was no bona fide exercise of jurisdiction or power by the concerned authority while issuing the said notice and he further submitted that the facts and circumstances which had occurred prior to issuance of the said notice, also lend support the contention of the appellants that the exercise of power lacked bona fide.

5. Drawing attention to the fact that even similar notices were issued earlier in the year 1982, learned advocate for the appellants further submitted that the present action was initiated consequent to the complaint by one Anil Mandavgade and not on the basis of the proper information collected as regards the condition of the building by the competent authorities of the Municipal Corporation.

6. Learned advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 7, on the other hand, submitted that the said notice was issued after proper inspection of the building by the engineering staff of the Corporation and taking into consideration the dilapidated condition of the building as well as the threat to the human life of the occupants and passers by of the building. He further submitted that both the fact finding authorities have considered this aspect as well as considered the report of the A.D.T.P. which is an independent