1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging a notice dated 27th July 2011 informing the petitioners that the licence bearing No. 761218231 will expire on 30th September 2011 and if any renewal is to be effected that will be only after the petitioner obtains an NOC from the Chief Executive Officer of Shri Siddhivinayak Ganapati Temple Trust.

2. The petitioners have stated that after receipt of this communication, they had pointed out that the Trust has assigned the permission in favour of one Rajiv Singhvi, Director of M/s.Vistas Network to continue to caretaking and putting small advertisement on the said sheds for the period of seven years and considering these facts the permission was granted for seven years. The entire shed as per the directions of the Trust is constructed by M/s.Vistas Network Marketing Pvt.Ltd., and considering these facts, the permission was granted for seven years. In these circumstances, by referring to the requirement to obtain a NOC from the Trust, it was prayed that the licence be renewed for a further period of four years without insisting on an NOC of the Trust as stated in the request letter. There is another communication followed by this one dated 24th August 2011 and, thereafter, the Advocate's notice dated 19th September 2011. However, there is no response thereto and the Corporation now contending that there is no licence to display the advertisements or glow signs, coercive measures may be taken to remove the same.

3. Apprehending that not only the advertisements which are displayed on the poles and angles would be removed but even the poles and angles will be removed, that this petition is filed.

4. It was listed before this Court on 3rd October 2011 on which date, time was given at the request of the Corporation till 10th October 2011. When this petition appeared on board on 11th October 2011, Mr.Pakale, learned Counsel appearing for Corporation, on instructions handed over a letter dated 10th October 2011, which was taken on record and marked “X” for identification, under which it was stated that the impugned communication dated 27th July 2011 stands withdrawn and further decision on the application for renewal will be taken in accordance with the policy and guidelines framed for display of advertisements, glow sign boxes under section 328 and 328A of the MMC Act, 1888. This decision is taken as the road and foot path vests with the Corporation.

5. Thereafter, at the request of the petitioner's Advocate, the matter was allowed to be mentioned on 13th October 2011 as the petitioner apprehended that contrary to the request that has been made for renewal and since the earlier licence has come to an end by efflux of time, the advertisements have been removed and they apprehend that even the poles and angles on which the advertisements were displayed would be forcibly removed. Therefore, at the request of parties the date was pre-poned and the matter has been taken up for admission today.

6. Mr.Madon, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there are two licences which have been issued in favour of the petitioners by the Corporation. One licence is already referred to above but the other licence bearing No.761230664 has been issued by the Corporation (G-South Ward). Thus, it is his submission that there are two licences which have been issued in favour of the petitioners as the area falls under the jurisdiction of two wards. Therefore, the licensing department under the control of the two wards have issued distinct licences and one has expired by efflux of time whereas the other which was issued by G-South ward is in force and it is valid up to 30th June 2012. Therefore, the advertisements which were displayed on the basis of these licences and within the area of operation of G-South ward could not have been removed. It is his submission that the Corporation has high handedly and at the instance of the