JUDGMENT 1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged notices dtd. 10/10/2018 and 22/11/2018, issued by respondent No.2 concerning a structure occupied by the petitioners. The petitioners have also challenged orders passed by two Courts below holding that appeal challenging the aforesaid notices was not maintainable under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short "Act of 1949 "). 2. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that perusal of the notice dtd. 22/11/2018, issued by respondent No.2 would show that it was clearly a notice under sec. 300 of the Act of 1949 for the reason that under the aforesaid provision, it would be the Commissioner or an Authorized Officer delegated by the said Commissioner, who could issue such a notice for demolition of the structure in question. It was contended that under sec. 264 of the Act of 1949, a designated officer could only ask the owner or the occupier of such a structure, which was found to be in a ruinous condition or dangerous to any person occupying the same, to remove or repair such a structure. On this basis, it was submitted that the appeal filed under sec. 306 of the Act of 1949, was clearly maintainable and that therefore, the two Courts below erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Quazi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, submitted that perusal of the notices dtd. 10/10/2018 and 22/11/2018 would show that such notices could not be said to be issued under sec. 300 of the Act of 1949, as the designated officer had asked the petitioners to remove the structure and thereafter indicated to them to vacate the structure within three days for removal of the same by exercising powers under sec. 264 of the Act of 1949. It was submitted that although the specific provision of sec. 264 of the Act of 1949 may not have been mentioned, but the contents of the notices demonstrated that such notices were clearly issued under the said provision. On this basis, it was submitted that the impugned orders did not deserve any interference. 4. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 i.e. the person to whom the notices dtd. 10/10/2018 and 22/11/2018 were addressed, submitted that the notices in question were not under sec. On this basis, it was submitted that the impugned orders did not deserve any interference. 4. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 i.e. the person to whom the notices dtd. 10/10/2018 and 22/11/2018 were addressed, submitted that the notices in question were not under sec. 300 of the Act of 1949 and therefore, the Courts below were justified in holding that the appeals filed under sec. 300 of the Act of 1949 were not maintainable. It is submitted that the petitioners in this case had suppressed vital information from this Court in the present petition. Attention of this Court was invited to the documents filed along with reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3, which show that the petitioners had filed civil suits before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur challenging the very notice dtd. 10/10/2018 issued by respondent No.2. It was brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner No.2 had filed Regular Civil Suit No.1237 of 2018 before the aforesaid Court at Nagpur and he had also filed Regular Civil Suit No.1238 of 2018, before the said Court at Nagpur. In these suits, the very notice dtd. 10/10/2018 was challenged. This fact was deliberately suppressed in the present petition, while approaching this Court. In this backdrop, it was submitted that now the petitioners could not be permitted to contend that if this Court is not with the petitioners on the question of maintainability of the appeal under sec. 306 of the Act of 1949, effectively the petition was reduced to a challenge to the aforesaid notices and that therefore, the matter should go before the Division Bench of this Court. It was submitted that the petitioners have been filing a plethora of proceedings before various Courts and Authorities, only with a view to delay the inevitable. 5. This Court has considered the impugned orders passed by the two Courts below. It is held that the appeal filed under sec. 306 of the Act of 1949 on behalf of the petitioners was not maintainable, for the reason that the notices in question could not be said to be notices issued under sec. 300 of the Act of 1949. 6. This Court has considered the contents of the aforesaid notices. It is held that the appeal filed under sec. 306 of the Act of 1949 on behalf of the petitioners was not maintainable, for the reason that the notices in question could not be said to be notices issued under sec. 300 of the Act of 1949. 6. This Court has considered the contents of the aforesaid notices. Sec. 300 of the Act of 1949 empowers the Commissioner to take appropriate action for removal of a structure, which is found to be unfit for occupation and there is a procedure prescribed therein to undertake such action. Under sec. 264 of the Act of 1949, the designated officer of the Corporation can issue notice to the owner or the occupier of the structure, which is found to be in ruinous condition or dangerous for occupation, to remove or repair of such structure to prevent danger to any person. Under subsection 3 of sec. 264 of the Act of 1949, the designated officer is empowered even to take down such a structure, which is found to be dangerous and which is about to fall either before giving notice or even before the period of notice expires. 7. The Courts below have taken into consideration the aforesaid provisions of the Act of 1949 and a finding is rendered that the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioners under sec. 306 of the Act of 1949 is not maintainable because such an appeal can be filed by an aggrieved person when a demolition order is made either under sec. 300 or sec. 303 of the Act of 1949. Considering the contents of the notices in question, this Court is of the opinion that no fault can be found with the findings rendered by the two Courts below that the appeal filed by the petitioners under sec. 306 of the Act of 1949 was not maintainable. 8. The material on record also shows that the petitioners willfully suppressed from this Court the fact that they had already filed Regular Civil Suit Nos.1237 and 1238 of 2018 before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, to challenge the very notice dtd. 10/10/2018. This was an information that was well within the knowledge of the petitioners because they themselves are plaintiffs in the aforesaid suits, which are pending before the said Court. 10/10/2018. This was an information that was well within the knowledge of the petitioners because they themselves are plaintiffs in the aforesaid suits, which are pending before the said Court. The petitioners suppressed filing of the aforesaid suits before the said Court and the fact that the challenge to the notice dtd. 10/10/2018 was already raised before the said Court in the pending suits. Despite having filed the aforesaid suits, apart from challenging the impugned orders passed by the two Courts below on the question of maintainability of the appeal under sec. 306 of the Act of 1949, the petitioners also challenged the said notice in the present writ petition. Such conduct on the part of the petitioners cannot be countenanced when they have knocked the doors of this Court seeking relief not only in the context of the impugned orders passed by the two Courts below, but also in respect of the said notices. In this situation, it cannot lie in the mouth of the petitioners that if this Court agrees with the findings rendered by the two Courts below on the question of maintainability of appeal under sec. 306 of the Act of 1949, which by implication would mean that the notices are to be treated as notices issued under sec. 264 of the Act of 1949, the present petition ought to be placed before the Division Bench of this Court. 9. This Court does not agree with the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. Filing of civil suits before the concerned Civil Court at Nagpur, suppressing such information from this Court, in the present petition, disentitles the petitioners to now claim that insofar as the aforesaid notices are concerned, the matter may not be dealt with by this Court. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. In this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought an order of status quo to be maintained. The record shows that on 30/04/2019, this Court had directed that till the returnable date demolition in terms of the impugned notices shall not take place. This was continued from 14/01/2020 till the next date of listing, but thereafter, there is no order continuing the said interim order. The record shows that on 30/04/2019, this Court had directed that till the returnable date demolition in terms of the impugned notices shall not take place. This was continued from 14/01/2020 till the next date of listing, but thereafter, there is no order continuing the said interim order. In any case, considering the conduct of the petitioners in willfully suppressing the information from this Court regarding filing of the aforesaid civil suits to challenge the notice in question, this Court is of the opinion that the prayer for grant of status quo for a few weeks, cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the same is rejected.