NAGPUR CAW No. 1137 of 2010 · Bombay High Court

of the writ petition. Senior Advocate Shri Bhangde with Adv. R.M. Bhangde points out that on 15/3/2010 this Court directed the respondent Municipal Commissioner to keep records available for perusal and then the petitioners were given xerox copy of those records. After perusal of those records, some information/facts came to light and on its strength grounds (9A to 9D are sought to be added in the writ petition. 2] Senior Advocate Shri Gordey with Advocate Kaptan for the respondent states that all documents and facts were within the knowledge of the petitioners and hence amendment is belated. 2 According to him, the amendment application deserves to be rejected. 3] Writ Petition is yet to be admitted. The orders under Section 82(B) are passed by the respondent after notice issued by office of the respondent for vacation of premises was questioned in statutory appeal. Further statutory appeal under Section 81(F) has been decided by District Judge-1, Akola. 4] In this situation, it is apparent that entire material and documents with the respondent prompted it to issue notice and to take action. If any ground is being raised on such grounds in the present writ petition. the respondent cannot complain of any prejudice and in any case no such prejudice is demonstrated. The application is, therefore, allowed. Necessary amendment to be carried out by 25th June, 2010. 5] Put up for further consideration on 29th June,2010, as requested. Interim order to continue. Ambulkar. JUDGE