1. This Writ Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the Notice dated 9th January, 2025 issued under Section S.351(1A) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 ('BMC Act') and the Order dated 21st February, 2025 thereof issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation ('BMC'), which the Petitioners contend are illegal, violative of Art.14, Art.19(1)(g), Art.21 and Art.300A of the Constitution of India.

2. BRIEF FACTS:
M/s. Modern Paint And Auto Corporation, Petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm and Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 being its partners, operate an auto workshop for M/s. Mercedes Auto Hangar. They assert that their premises constitute a tolerated structure existing prior to the datum line of 1st April, 1962, for non - residential structures, as supported by Tikka Sheets of Cadastral Survey (1935, 1952 and 1969) and BMC Assessment Records.

3. Mr. Navroz Servai, learned senior counsel for the Petitioners, argues that the BMC failed to provide a fair hearing and disregarded material evidence, including factory licenses valid until 31st December 2027. He contends the Notice is jurisdictionally defective, motivated by an ulterior motive.
3.1. Mr. Seervai, learned counsel for the Petitioners, narrated the facts outlined in the Petition, asserting that the structures in question predate 1961. He explained that until 1958, the property was owned by the Scindia family and had been in existence since 1915. Around 1958, a portion of the Scindia family estate was leased to the Amateur Rider's Club and the premises came into the exclusive possession of one Mr. Feroz Cama, who held a rent receipt for the property issued in his name. The estate, now commonly known as Shivsagar Estates, has a well - documented history.
3.2. He argued that, the issuance of Notice under S.351(1A) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 ('BMC Act') was itself a ity as it has failed to comply with the mandatory requirement prescribed under the law. He further submitted that, the Petitioners had not undertaken any substantial alterations to the structure, except for tenantable repairs necessary to maintain the premises in line with the specifications required for operating a Mercedes - Benz workshop. He emphasized that the present Notice was served on the Petitioners for the first time after over 65 years since the structure was constructed.
3.3. Mr. Seervai argued that, the plan of Poonam Chambers, which was relied upon for issuing the impugned Notice, was never presented to the Petitioners, thereby depriving them of an opportunity to address or con - test its contents. He further contended that, reliance on a private plan of 1975 for the sanctioning of Poonam Chambers was fundamentally flawed, as the Tikka Sheets from the Cadastral Survey - dating back to 1935, 1952, and 1969 - clearly demonstrated the existence of the Petitioners' premises before the date of the plan being relied upon. Moreover, the Assessment Sheets maintained by the BMC themselves established that the premises existed prior to 1961-62.
3.4. Mr. Seervai submitted that, the Petitioners promptly responded to the impugned Notice with an initial reply on 13th January, 2025, followed by a comprehensive response on 17th January, 2025. In these responses, the Petitioners provided sufficient cause, addressed all allegations raised in the Notice, and furnished supporting documentary evidence to substantiate their claims. Despite requesting a personal hearing, which is an essential aspect of natural justice, the BMC failed to grant them such an opportunity.
3.5. Subsequently, on 5th February and 10th February, 2025, the Petitioners submitted additional reply and representations to further establish the legality of the premises. On 11th February, 2025, they made a detailed representation to the Assistant Engineer of the Building Proposal Department, BMC explaining the lawful status of the structure. However, in the absence of any response, they were compelled to approach