Facts: The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai issued a notice under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, to the respondent, Vidyavatidevi Ramnarayan Sahani, directing her to stop repairing work on a structure she occupied. The respondent replied, denying the work fell under Section 354A and stating the structure was census-certified. The Corporation did not pass any order after receiving the reply.
Procedural Posture: The respondent filed a suit challenging the notice. The City Civil Court quashed the notice, finding it vague and noting the lack of an adjudicatory order. The Municipal Corporation appealed this decision to the High Court.
Issue: Was the City Civil Court justified in quashing the notice issued under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, due to vagueness and the absence of an adjudicatory order after the respondent replied to the notice?
Holding: No interference is called for in the order of the City Civil Court. The appeal is dismissed, and the decree quashing the notice under Section 354A of the Act is confirmed.
Reasoning: The Court held that the Corporation's circular dated 29 April 2006 mandates a reasoned order be passed if a reply is received to a Section 354A notice. The notice was vague, failing to specify the nature of the unauthorized repair or contravention of the Act. The Corporation's failure to pass an order after the respondent's reply, whether accepting or rejecting it, was a critical omission. The Court stated, "the Corporation was duty bound to pass an appropriate order and inform the respondent."