Suleman Mohammed Hussain Wawda v. The Municipal Corporation For Greater Mumbai

LSP 1 18 WP 198. 2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 198 of 2025 Suleman Mohammed Hussain Wawda ...

Petitioner V/s.

The Municipal Corporation For Greater Mumbai & Anr.

...

Respondents Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w Mr. Sahil Salvi i/b Mr. Omar Khaiyam Shaikh for Petitioner.

Mr. Chaitanya Chavan a/w Ms. Vaishali Ugale for RespondentsBMC. Mr. Amogh Singh a/w Mr. Santosh Pathak a/w Mr. Kailash Pathak a/w Mr. Deepesh Y. Kadam i/b Law Origin for Respondent No.2. CORAM : M.S. KARNIK & S.M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 10th March 2026.

P.C. :

Digitally signed by LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Date:

2026.03.12 18:56:29 +0530 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel LATA SUNIL PANJWANI for the respondents. The relief prayed in this petition is in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads thus:

"(b) To issue writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus order or direction against Respondent No.1/MCGM to act against Respondent No.2 in terms of the complaint letter dated 23rd October 2024 (Exh - F) and demolish the extension admeasuring

LSP 2 18 WP 198. 2025.doc 180 sq. ft. (approx.) as per law."

2.

Accordingly the Corporation by a reasoned speaking order dated 10th March 2025 already declared the structure to be unauthorised. The petitioner against whom the order was passed by the Corporation challenged the same before the City Civil Court, however, failed to obtain any ad-interim relief. 3.

In the appeal from order filed before this Court, this Court by order dated 15th April 2025 has directed the Corporation not to take further action by implementing the impugned notice. There have been some subsequent challenges placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the Corporation ought to have taken the notice to the logical conclusion and demolished the suit structure in terms of the order passed by the Corporation.

4.

Suffice it to observe that the proceedings are already pending in this Court in challenge to the order passed by Corporation. We can see from the record that the Corporation has acted in compliance and taken necessary action. Such is obviously subject to any legal impediment or having regard to such orders as may be passed by this Court in Appeal from Order. The Corporation shall take further steps in accordance with law once there is no legal impediment in its way.

5.

In our opinion, the purpose of filing the petition is served as

LSP 3 18 WP 198. 2025.doc the Corporation has taken action. The notice has been now challenged by respondent No.2 before the competent Court. The petition is, therefore, disposed of. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to apply at later stage, if necessary.

6.

It is made clear that we have not observed anything on the merits of the respective contentions.

(S.M.MODAK,J.) (M.S.KARNIK, J.)