( 1 ) THIS judgment will govern the disposal of first Appeal Nos. 702/66 246 247 218 219 220 221 and 222/67 which arise out of the decrees of the learned Judges of the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad in Civil Suit Nos. 903/64 239 848 193 198 199 230 and 315/65 respectively. All these appeals involve a question as to the validity of the notices issued by the Junior Assistant to the Estate and City Improvement Officer Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Ahmedabad calling upon the plaintiffs in those suits to pull down or remove the structures mentioned in the notices. The notices in all the cases are identical except in respect of the names of the persons and the description of the property to be pulled down or removed. It is therefore not necessary to consider in detail the facts of all the suits and the civil suit No. 903/64 may be considered as a sample case for the purpose of these appeals.

( 2 ) IN the above suit the notice was issued on 8-1-1964 by the Estate and City Improvement Officer under the provisions of sub-sec. (1) of of sec. 260 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) calling upon the plaintiff to show cause on or before 15-1-1954 as to why certain constructions alleged to have been made in contravention of the provisions of the bye-laws should not be pulled down. The plaintiff showed cause on 13-1-1964. As the Estate and City Improvement Officer was not satisfied with the cause shown by the plaintiff the impugned notice was issued by the Junior Assistant to the Estate and City improvement Officer on 18-1-1964 calling upon the plaintiff to pull down or remove the structure as shown in the notice expeditiously or rapidly. According to the plaintiff the notice was not legal and hence he filed the suit in the City Civil Court Ahmedabad to obtain a declaration that the notice was unauthorised and vague and also to obtain an injunction restraining the defendant Municipal Corporation from pulling down the structure in question. The defendant by its written statement Ex. 6 contested the suit. According to it the notice was legal.

( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge has dismissed the suit. Two other suits being civil suit Nos. 239/65 and 848/65 the facts of which were as observed above similar to those of civil suit No. 903/64 have also been dismissed by the trial court and being aggrieved by the decisions of the trial court the plaintiffs have come in appeal. (First Appeal Nos. 702/66 246 and 247/67 ).

( 4 ) THE civil suit Nos. 193/65 198 199 230 and 315/65 the facts of which were also similar to those of the other suits have been decided in favour of the plaintiffs and being aggrieved by the decision in those suits the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has come in appeal. (First Appeal Nos. 218 to 222 of 1967 ).

( 5 ) THE notices in question were challenged on various grounds in the trial court but in these appeals Mr. C. M. Trivedi the learned advocate for the plaintiffs challenges the notices only on the ground that no sufficient time was given for compliance with the notices to the plaintiffs concerned. In the notices in all the cases the plaintiffs have been called upon to pull down or remove the structures in question expeditiously or rapidly. The relevant word in Gujarati which has been used in the notice is takide. According to Mr. C. M. Trivedi the word takide is rather vague as it is likely that that word would be interpreted in different manner by different persons. It is not disputed that the first notice calling upon the plaintiffs to show cause why the structure should not be pulled down or removed was issued under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 260 of the Act which runs as under: (1 ). If the erection of any building or the execution of any such work as is described in sec. 254 is commenced or carried out contrary to the provisions of the rules or bye-laws the Commissioner unless he deems it necessary to take proceedings in respect of such building or work under