2026:BHC-AS:4128 N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Digitally signed by PRACHI PRACHI PRANESH PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1807 OF 2011 NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2026.01.28 16:33:42 +0530 The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai Having their office at Mahapalika Bhavan, Mahapalika Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. ….Appellant (Original Defendant)

V/s.

Vidyavatidevi Ramnarayan Sahani Age 55 years, an adult, Indian inhabitant of Bombay, Having structure situated at CTS No.950 (pt.), Near Link Road, Dahisar (West), Mumbai – 68. .…Respondent (Original Plaintiff)

----

Ms. Pallavi Khale i/by Ms. Komal Punjabi for the Appellant-MCGM.

Mr. J. G. Kadam i/by Mr. B.P. Shukla for the Respondent.

----

CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.

DATED : 27 January 2026 Judgment :

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-Corporation challenging the order dated 8 December 2009 passed by the City Civil Court whereby notice dated 4 February 2008 under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short ‘the Act’) was quashed and set aside.

2. The only issue which arises for my consideration is whether the City Civil Court was justified in quashing the notice under Section 354A of the Act?

3. The respondent is in occupation and possession of a structure situated at CTS No.950. It is the case of the respondent that she had initiated the work of plastering of walls of the suit structure. The appellant- Corporation issued a notice under Section 354A of the Act on 4 February 2008 directing the respondent to stop the repairing work. The respondent replied to the said notice on 4 February 2008 itself. In the said reply, the respondent denied that the work of plastering falls within the purview of Section 354A of the Act. The respondent also stated that the suit structure is census vide Certificate dated 24 December 1978. The respondent also annexed Census Certificate, Gumasta License and application dated 22 July 2000. The respondent prayed for dropping the impugned notice. Admittedly, no order was passed by the respondent after receipt of the said reply. The respondent, therefore, filed a suit challenging the notice under Section 354A of the Act.

4. The appellant-Corporation did not file any written statement. The learned Trial Court quashed the notice on the ground that the notice is vague. The impugned notice does not describe as to what is the nature of the construction for which the 354A notice is issued. The learned Trial Court has further observed that no order has been passed adjudicating

354A notice. Therefore, the suit was decreed and the notice was set aside.

5. Ms.Khale, learned counsel for the Corporation vehemently supported the issuance of the impugned notice. She further submitted that the provisions of Section 354A does not require passing of any order. She submitted that the notice was issued for stopping the unauthorised repairing of the gala of the respondent. She, therefore, submitted that the appeal be allowed.

6. Mr. Kadam, learned counsel for the respondent states that the appellant-Corporation ought to have considered the reply filed and passed an order adjudicating the contention raised in the said reply. Learned counsel for the respondent further relies upon the Circular dated 29 April 2006 issued by the appellant-Corporation which requires the Corporation to pass an order if reply is received pursuant to the notice issued under Section 354A of the Act. He, therefore, supported the impugned order.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation and the respondent.

8. The circular issued by the appellant-Corporation dated 29 April 2006, in paragraph 3 it is specifically stated that in case any reply is received to a notice under Section 354A of the Act, then the concerned officer shall pass a reasoned order. This circular is binding on the authority which has issued the impugned notice dated 4 February 2008. The circular was in force on the date of issuance of the impugned notice. Admittedly,