Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

1. Rule. Learned counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of learned counsel.

2. The challenge in these proceedings is to Section 515A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 which is brought on the statute by Maharashtra Act No.II of 2012. The Act received the assent of the President and was published in the gazette on 13 March 2012.

3. The dispute in the present case relates to a structure constructed on a plot of land bearing CTS No.50/A at S.V.Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400 092. A notice was issued by the Municipal Corporation on 28 May 2013 under Section 351 of the Act on the ground that the structure is unauthorized. An order was passed on 17 June 2013 requiring the removal of the structure on the ground that it is unauthorized. This order was passed by the Designated Officer after furnishing to the Petitioner an opportunity of showing cause. The Petitioner filed a suit before the City Civil Court. Ad-interim relief was declined by an order dated 26 June 2013 both on the ground that in view of the amendment brought about to insert Section 515A, notices issued under Sections 351 and 354A could not be questioned in a civil court and on the ground that a grievance redressal machinery has been provided under a circular issued by the Municipal Corporation.

4. Section 515A provides as follows:

"515A: Bar of jurisdiction:

Save as otherwise provided in this Act, any notice issued, order passed or direction issued by the Designated Officer, under section 351 or 354A shall not be questioned in any suit or other legal proceedings."

5. The challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 515A is on the following grounds which have been urged at the hearing:

(i) No requirement of a hearing has been stipulated in subsection 1(A) of Section 351 and in Section 354A;

(ii) Before initiation of an action under Sections 351 and 354A, a designated officer must be satisfied that the structure is unauthorized and he may pass an order of demolition;

(iii) Prior to the insertion of Section 515A, access to the civil courts was not barred, whereas, as a result of the bar of jurisdiction contained in the newly added provision, no civil suit can lie for the purposes of questioning an order, notice or direction issued under Section 351 or Section 354A of the Act;

(iv) Even though a structure is unauthorized, the statute does not mandate that it shall be demolished since under sub-section 2 of Section 351, the designated officer may require the removal of the structure. An adequate machinery has not been provided in the statute for adjudication of all issues that may arise in the context of an action initiated against an unauthorized construction and consequently the bar of jurisdiction under Section 515A is arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

6. When the petition came up for hearing, it appeared to the Court hat in the interests of justice it would be necessary to resolve the issue of the constitutional validity of Section 515A in order to set at rest the uncertainty arising out of the maintainability of civil suits across the State and in particular in the city of Mumbai in regard to notices, directions or orders under Section 351 and Section 354A. The amending act, it must be noted, has brought about similar amendments to Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. In that view of the matter, we issue notice to the learned Advocate General. The learned Advocate General has appeared before the Court and has accepted the notice. We have accordingly heard the learned Advocate General in defense to the challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions.

7. On behalf of the State it has been submitted by the learned Advocate General that:

(i) The requirement of compliance with the prin