This writ petition was heard along with two others filed by other parties in which also the Constitutional validity of Chapter V.A of the Act was questioned.
In the meantime, on October 13, 1966 the appellant had filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the order dated March, 19, 1966 which the appellant subsequently withdrew with liberty to file a fresh petition.
The second ground was that the appellant was guilty of suppression of a material fact which disentitled the appellant from invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
This, how the appeal has companye before this Bench.
In this Court the question whether Chapter V A of the Act was violative of Article 14 was heard by Constitution Bench which held inter alia that the provisions of Chanter V A are number hit by Article 14 of the Constitution See Maganlal Chaganlal P Ltd. v. Municipal Corparation of Greater Bombay, and this appeal and the several other appeals that were heard along with it on the said question were directed to be posted for disposal before a Division Bench.
Thereafter on October 21, 1966 the appellant filed the petition out of which this appeal arises.
The validity of the order under Section 105 B was questioned on several grounds including the ground that Chapter V A of the Act, particularly Section 105 B thereof, was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
C. Gupta, J. This appeal, brought on certificate granted by the High Court at Bombay, is directed against an order dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant companypany challenging an order made under Section 105B of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 hereinafter referred to as the Act by which the appellant was asked to vacate the premises in dispute within one month of the date of the service of the order.
