The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appeal under sec. 306 of the Act of 1949 can only be filed when a demolition order is made under sec. 300 or sec. 303 of the Act of 1949.

JUDGMENT

1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged notices dtd. 10/10/2018 and 22/11/2018, issued by respondent No.2 concerning a structure occupied by the petitioners. The petitioners have also challenged orders passed by two Courts below holding that appeal challenging the aforesaid notices was not maintainable under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short "Act of 1949 ").

2. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that perusal of the notice dtd. 22/11/2018, issued by respondent No.2 would show that it was clearly a notice under sec. 300 of the Act of 1949 for the reason that under the aforesaid provision, it would be the Commissioner or an Authorized Officer delegated by the said Commissioner, who could issue such a notice for demolition of the structure in question. It was contended that under sec. 264 of the Act of 1949, a designated officer could only ask the owner or the occupier of such a structure, which was found to be in a ruinous condition or dangerous to any person occupying the same, to remove or repair such a structure. On this basis, it was submitted that the appeal filed under sec. 306 of the Act of 1949, was clearly maintainable and that therefore, the two Courts below erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Quazi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, submitted that perusal of the notices dtd. 10/10/2018 and 22/11/2018 would show that such notices could not be said to be issued under sec. 300 of the Act of 1949, as the designated officer had asked the petitioners to remove the structure and thereafter indicated to them to vacate the structure within three days for removal of the same by exercising powers under sec. 264 of the Act of 1949. It was submitted that although the specific provision of sec. 264 of the Act of 1949 may not have been mentioned, but the contents of the notices demonstrated that such notices were clearly issued under the said provision. On this basis, it was submitted that the impugned orders did not deserve any interference.

4. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 i.e. the person to whom the notices dtd. 10/10/2018 and 22/11/2018 were addressed, submitted that the notices in question were not under sec. 300 of the Act of 1949 and therefore, the Courts below were justified in holding that the appeals filed under sec. 300 of the Act of 1949 were not maintainable. It is submitted that the petitioners in this case had suppressed vital information from this Court in the present petition. Attention of this Court was invited to the documents filed along with reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3, which show that the petitioners had filed civil suits before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur challenging the very notice dtd. 10/10/2018 issued by respondent No.2. It was brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner No.2 had filed Regular Civil Suit No.1237 of 2018 before the aforesaid Court at Nagpur and he had also filed Regular Civil Suit No.1238 of 2018, before the said Court at Nagpur. In these suits, the very notice dtd. 10/10/2018 was challenged. This fact was deliberately suppressed in the present petition, while approaching this Court. In this backdrop, it was submitted that now the petitioners could not be permitted to contend that if this Court is not with the petitioners on the question of maintainability of the appeal under sec. 306 of the Act of 1949, effectively the petition was reduced to a challenge to the aforesaid notices and that therefore, the matter should go before the Division Bench of this Court. It was submitted that the petitioners have been filing a plethora of proceedings before various Courts and Authorities, only with a view to delay the inevitable.

5. This Court has considered the impugned orders passed by the two Courts below. It is held that the appeal filed under sec. 306 of the Act of 194