Mahadev Ramchandra Kamble v. Mumbai Municipal Corportion Through Its Commissioner

301-wp 2303-25.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2303 OF 2025 Mahadev Ramchandra Kamble ... Petitioner

Versus

Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Anr.

... Respondents .............

Dr. Uday P. Warunjikar a/w. Ms. Sonali R. Chavan i/b Mr. Siddhesh A. Pilankar for the Petitioner.

Ms. Pushpa Yadav i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi for the Respondent-BMC. Mr. Samir S. Murari, License Inspector, P/North.

CORAM

: G. S. KULKARNI AND MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATED : 20 th AUGUST, 2025.

P.C. :

1.

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs :

a) That this Court be pleased to direct the respondent by writ in the nature of mandamus to take action against the illegal hoardings and the encroachment done on the subject matter of the present petitioner within such period as this Court may deem fit and proper.

b) This Court be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to fix the responsibility for not taking action of demolition on the concerned officer and take appropriate departmental action within such period as this Court may deem fit and proper.

2.

Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation on instructions of Mr. Samir S. Murari, License Inspector of Municipal Corporation makes a statement that the hoardings in regard to which the petitioner has made a complaint and subject matter of the present petition have already been Amk 1/2

301-wp 2303-25.doc removed. Photographs to that effect have also been placed on record along with the instructions.

3.

In this view of the matter, the grievance of the petitioner would not survive. However, the Municipal Corporation is directed to take necessary action in the event such illegality occurs in the future and it shall take all steps to prevent the installation of any illegal hoardings, that interfere with the petitioner's right to enjoy his premises. Further adjudication on the petition accordingly is not called for.

4.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) ( G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Amk 2/2