Parveen Usman Shaikh v. Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai Thr The Municipal Commissioner And ORS

by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date:

2025.08.26 21:12:34 +0530 VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

varsha CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6343 OF 2024 Satish Mahadeo Rupawate Heir and Lrs ... Petitioner vs.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ... Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6378 OF 2024 Jayashree Rajaram Rasam Heir and Lrs of Late Shri Rajaram Rasam ... Petitioner vs.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6410 OF 2024 Asha Sudhakar Ghodke ... Petitioner vs.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6412 OF 2024 Girish Umesh Sodiye Heir and Lrs of Late Shri Umesh D. Sodiye ... Petitioner vs.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors ... Respondents Page no. 1 of 5

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6347 OF 2024 Parveen Usman Shaikh ... Petitioner vs.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6436 OF 2024 Yeshwant Ajit Gaonkar ... Petitioner vs.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors ... Respondents Mr. Akshay Pai i/b. Ms. Bina Pai for the Petitioners Mr. Som Sinha, Ms. Rutuja Thaker, Ms. Rutuja Bhise a/w. Mr. Santosh Mali i/b. Ms. Komal Punjabi for Respondent -BMC. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATED : 25th AUGUST 2025 ORDER:

1.

Not on board. Taken on the production board.

2.

Learned counsel for the respondent-corporation has circulated these petitions to make a grievance that none of the petitioners have filed application for leading additional evidence. He submits that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as Page no. 2 of 5

recorded in paragraph no.1 of order dated 14th August 2025 are incorrect. Hence, a specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether all the petitioners have filed application for leading additional evidence.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that all the petitioners have filed an application and the copy of the applications were already taken on record, in these petitions. 4.

I have perused the papers of the petitions. The copies of applications for leading evidence does not appear to be tendered on record. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioners was called upon to submit a fresh copy of the applications filed by the petitioners. However, he is unable to place on record any such copies. 5.

To the query put regarding placing on record copies of the applications for leading additional evidence, learned counsel for the petitioners tendered a praecipe dated 25th August 2025 seeking speaking to the minutes of order dated 14th August 2025. There is no mistake in the order. Hence, there is no question of making any correction in the order. The contents of the praecipe are completely misleading. Hence, the praecipe dated 25th August 2025, is rejected. 6.

Learned counsel for the petitioners was permitted to verify the court's record for the purpose of clarification as to which documents, Page no. 3 of 5

the petitioners intend to rely by way of additional evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out two compilation of documents filed before this court. Both the compilations are flagged and marked by the learned counsel for the petitioners. One compilation is filed with a index dated 4th September 2025 and another compilation with the index dated 20th August 2025. The compilation with index dated 4th September 2025 is marked 'X1' for identification with today's date. Compilation with index dated 20th August 2025 is marked as 'X2' with today's date for identification. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that except for these documents, and the documents with the list part 1 which contains the copy of Special Leave Petition No. 13605 of 2017 alongwith all the annexures filed in the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioners do not intend to rely upon any other documents.

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioners confirms that except these three compilations, the petitioners do not intend to rely upon any additional documents. Learned counsel for the corporation is therefore at liberty to file reply in response to the documents annexed to these three compilations.

8.

The corporation is at liberty to tender affidavit in response to the documents of these three compilations when the matter is called Page no. 4 of 5

out on 4th September 2025. Learned counsel for the corporation shall ensure that the copy of the affidavit is served upon the learned advocate for the petitioners in advance.

9.

List the petitions on 4th September 2025 as directed vide order dated 14th August 2025.

(GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 5 of 5