Murli Rochaldas Kukreja v. The Mumbai Municipal Corp Of Greater Bombay

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.733 OF 2025 Murli Rochaldas Kukreja ... Petitioner.

V/s.

The Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors.

... Respondents.

Mr. Amol B. Jagtap, i/b Adv. Chandni Sachade for the Petitioner. Mr. Ashwin Sakolkar, a/w Adv. S.V. Tondwalkar, i/by Adv. Komal Punjabi for Respondent Nos.1 to 6.

Mr. Rohit Ghube, Sub. Engg. (B&F), 'S' Ward, present. Mr. Abhay L. Patki, Addl. GP for Respondent Nos.7, 8, 9 & 11. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ.

DATE : 30th April 2025.

P.C.:- ASHWINI H GAJAKOSH ASHWINI H GAJAKOSH Date: 2025.05.05 09:07:31 +0530 1) Leave to amend to delete the personal names of Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 from the array of Respondents, granted. 1.1) Amendment be carried out forthwith.

2) Mr. Ashwin Sakolkar, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 on instructions submitted that Respondent No.3, the Assistant Engineer (Factory & Building) 'S' Ward will visit the writ premises and submit a detailed report to this Court on or before 14th May, 2025. 3) Stand over to 16th May, 2025.

4) After 10 minutes of dictating the aforenoted Order, Mr. Amol B. Jagtap, learned Advocate for the Petitioner again appeared before this 1/3

Court and submitted that, the Petitioner has threatened him with dire consequences in the corridors of the Court, as he had not argued what the Petitioner wanted. He submitted that he did not argue it because that facts was not part of the Petition. Therefore he and Advocate on record Ms. Chandni Sachade seek discharge from the matter. Upon hearing the Advocates grievance and plight, being threatened despite having an Order in favour of the Petitioner, we deem it fit and accordingly discharge the said Advocates from appearing in the Petition.

5) At this stage, taking into consideration the threats extended by the Petitioner to the counsel appeared for him and the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, we called Mr. Avinash B. Bajgir, P.C. No.093611, who is on duty in the Court precincts, for maintaining peace, to take the Petitioner to the High Court Police Chowky and register a crime against him. However, at the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner, we refrained ourselves from doing so. We thereafter directed the P.C. Mr. Avinash B. Bajgir, to take the Petitioner in the Police Chowky of High Court and record the incident that occurred in the corridor of the Court and to caution him about it. As per the information provided by the staff of the Court, Mr. Avinash B. Bajgir, P.C. accordingly has recorded the aforenoted incident in the Station Diary being No.26 of 2025 dated 30th April, 2025.

2/3

6) It be noted here that, when we were passing the present Order, the Petitioner continued to interrupt and bicker with the Court and insisted that, we record things in this Order, though it were irrelevant. 7) Taking into consideration the deplorable conduct of the Petitioner, we left with no option but to dismiss the Petition in limine. 8) Petition is accordingly dismissed in the aforesaid terms. (KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.) 3/3