Dinesh Phadke v. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation Thr Municipal Commissioner And ANR

19-wp 217-25.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 217 OF 2025 Dinesh Phadke ... Petitioner

Versus

Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Anr. ... Respondents __________________________ Mr. Sattyendra Mulay (through VC) a/w. Ms. Shambhavi Desai for the Petitioner.

Mr. Deepak R. More a/w. Mr. Shivram A. Gawade for Respondent No.1. Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent No.2.

__________________________

CORAM

: M. S. KARNIK AND S. M. MODAK, JJ.

DATED : 1 st APRIL, 2026.

P.C. :

1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.

It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.3, who is his neighbour, is responsible for unauthorised construction which is subject matter of this petition. Pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner, Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation issued a notice dated 12th September, 2022 to respondent No.3 under Section 478 (1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite issuance of specific notice dated 12th September, 2022 addressed to respondent No.3, the Corporation has failed to take the said notice to its logical conclusion.

Amk 1/2

19-wp 217-25.doc 3.

Once the notice has been issued under Section 478 (1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, the said notice dated 12th September, 2022 must be taken to its logical conclusion by respondent No.1-Corporation expeditiously and preferably within a period of 16 weeks from the date of the communication of this Order. It would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances if an opportunity of hearing is given to respondent No.3.

4.

The writ petition is disposed of.

(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.) Amk 2/2