901-wp.10645.2017.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10645 OF 2017 Sandip Machindra Patil ...Petitioner Versus Municipal Commissioner Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation and Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Dadhichi Mhaispurkar with Rishikesh Pawaskar and Mr. Rohan Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. A. S. Rao, for the Respondent No.1-Municipal Commissioner Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation. Mr. Ketan V. Joshi, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for the Respondent-State. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 31st AUGUST 2026 P.C. : 1. The learned counsel representing the Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation (‘KDMC’) makes a request to this Court to let the petitioner be directed to file a fresh petition. Upon hearing the counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the pleadings in the petition, we do not accede to the said request. 2. The petitioner, in the year 2017 itself, had raised a grievance in respect of the alleged illegal and unauthorized N. S. Chitnis 1/3 NISHA SANDEEP CHITNIS Digitally signed by NISHA SANDEEP CHITNIS Date: 2026.09.05 13:25:31 +0530 901-wp.10645.2017.doc construction carried out by the respondent No.2 on land bearing Survey Nos.121/5-A and 121/19-A, situated at Village Dawdi, Taluka Kalyan, District Thane. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court and the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 3rd April 2017, permitted the petitioner to prefer a representation to the Municipal Commissioner, KDMC Accordingly, on 13th April 2017, a representation was made. The petitioner thereafter came to know that notices of hearing had already been issued to him on 7th March 2017 and 15th March 2017 in respect of the alleged unauthorised construction. However, no further steps were taken, which constrained the petitioner to approach this Court. 3. We permit the Municipal Commissioner, KDMC, to treat the present writ petition as a representation, particularly since the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that the representation as well as the notices issued are not traceable in the file of the Municipal Commissioner. We must take note of the sorry state of affairs, which leads us to draw an inference that, despite notices N. S. Chitnis 2/3 901-wp.10645.2017.doc having been issued in respect of the alleged unauthorised structure in the year 2017, no action has been taken even in the year 2026 though it is duty of the Corporation to prevent erection of an unauthorized structures. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the construction of the structure is now complete. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, we direct the Municipal Commissioner, KDMC, to treat the present writ petition as a representation and to make necessary enquiry in respect of the alleged unauthorised structure of respondent No.2 and we expect an order to be passed either condoning the unauthorized act or taking an action against the unauthorized structure. We, however, fix a time line of three months in initiating such an action. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J. N. S. Chitnis 3/3