23-WP-12871-2022.odt rajshree IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.12871 OF 2022 F.N. Social Education Medical Charities Trust ....Petitioner V/S Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. ....Respondents Mr.Malhar Zatakia a/w Mr.Shantanu Shetty i/b Mr.Sangram Chinnappa for the Petitioner. Mr.Vishwanath Patil a/w Mr.Akshay Naidu for Respondent No.1, PMC. Mr.Ashutosh Kumbhkoni, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Manish Kelkar and Ms.Gauri Phadake for Respondent No.2. CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE & ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ DATE : 31st AUGUST 2026 P.C. : 1 The Petition is filed by the Trust and on an earlier occasion on the preliminary objection being raised about maintainability of the Petition at the instance of the Petitioner, by order dated 16/04/2026, we dealt with the said objection and turned it down by recording that the Petitioner Trust being represented through Mr.Lazarus Chinnappa, definitely has interest in the subject matter as he was the Trustee on the date of filing of the Petition or as on date of passing of the order. 1/6 RAJSHREE KISHOR MORE Digitally signed by RAJSHREE KISHOR MORE Date: 2026.09.02 11:06:50 +0530 23-WP-12871-2022.odt We, however, expected the Pune Municipal Corporation to file its Affidavit as regards the challenge in the Petition. 2 The Petitioner Trust is aggrieved by the order passed by Pune Municipal Corporation and this is as regards the property bearing Survey No.75/2, Wanowrie, Pune, and it is the contention of the Petitioner that the property was gifted to the Trust by late Reverend Father Nunes. However, in the year 2010 one Mrs.Yasmin Sayyed, on the basis of a forged and fabricated Will of late Reverend Father Nunes, executed a Sale Deed in favour of a Developer i.e. Respondent No.2. Goel Ganga India Pvt. Ltd. pertaining to the Trust property. However, she came to be convicted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Pune, alongwith other accused persons for forging and fabricating the Will, on the basis of which she claimed that she had inherited the Trust Property. The Joint Charity Commissioner restrained the Developer as well as Mrs.Yasmin Sayyed from dealing with the Trust Property in any manner. 3 In the present proceedings before us are the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court against the Developer i.e. Respondent No.2, when damages of Rs.100 Crores were imposed and direction was issued to the Developer to deposit the same within six months or else indicated that the licence/registration/ permission granted to M/s. Goel Ganga India Pvt. Ltd. to develop any ‘real estate project’ within the meaning of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short “the Act of 2016”) shall be cancelled and a further condition being imposed 2/6 23-WP-12871-2022.odt that the Developer and its Director shall not be granted any permission to develop any ‘real estate project’ under the Act of 2016. 4 The learned counsel for the Petitioner has invited our attention to the specific order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and various restrictions which came to be imposed by the Hon’ble Apex Court upon Respondent No.2, upon certain specific findings being rendered and in specific he would invite our attention to the Paragraph pertaining to findings and directions in Para 66 and with a specific direction as contained in Para 66.13, which reads to the following effect :- “66.13. The project proponent is granted six months' time to deposit the amount of damages imposed in terms of Direction 66.9 supra in the Registry of this Court. In case the project proponent does not deposit the amount within six months then all the assets of the project proponent i.e. M/s Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. as well as its Directors shall be attached and the amount of damages shall be recovered by sale of those assets. It is further directed that in case this amount is not deposited within the period of six months then the licence/registration/permission granted to M/s.Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. to develop any “real estate project” within the meaning of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 shall be cancelled and the project proponent i.e. M/s.Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors shall not be granted permission to develop any “real estate project” under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 without permission of this Court.” 5 In the wake of the aforesaid, it is the contention of the Petitioner that the permission granted by the PMC in favour of Respondent No.2 on 12/06/2019 is clearly in teeth of the said order and not only that it is also in breach of the said order of the Charity Commissioner restraining the Developer from dealing with the Trust property. 3/6 23-WP-12871-2022.odt It is also the contention of the Petitioner that on 21/06/2019 the PMC issued Commencement Certificate in favour of the Developer, which was followed by the Developer seeking several permissions from PMC, which is clearly in breach of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court restraining it from taking any development project. Our attention is also invited to the order dated 20/12/2019 when the Commencement Certificate No.2195/2019 was issued in favour of the Developer. It is upon this ground that when the Apex Court had imposed an embargo upon the Developer in proceeding with any ‘real estate project’ in absence of the amount of damages being directed to be deposited with the timeline specified, it is the contention of the Petitioner that the permissions granted are liable to be quashed and set aside. Opposing the said contention, the learned senior counsel Mr. Kumbhkoni would invite our attention to the further order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court being the order dated 27/01/2020 when, upon an Application being taken out by the Developer seeking clarification of the Judgment dated 10/08/2018 and seeking relaxation in respect of carrying out the Project other than the subject project in respect of which the damages were imposed, upon deposit of Rs.40 Crores the Apex Court considered the Application and clarified that in the wake of deposit of Rs.40 Crores, the Appellant be granted requisite permission in respect of other Projects, though in respect of the Project which was covered by the Judgment of the Apex Court, no further construction was directed to be carried out till the Judgment dated 10/08/2018 is complied with in its entirety. 4/6 23-WP-12871-2022.odt 6 In light of the aforesaid order, in our view though the learned counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently urged before us that the said order has a prospective effect, we specifically asked Mr.Kumbhkoni to place before us the dates of deposit of the amount of Rs.40 Crores and from the receipts it emerges that on 25/03/2019 entire amount of Rs.40 Crores was deposited. If we accept this as the date of compliance of the deposit of Rs.40 Crores, on 12/06/2019, the stipulation of depositing Rs.40 Crores was already achieved and though it is only on 27/01/2020, the Hon’ble Apex Court granted relaxation in respect of the Projects undertaken by the Developer other than the Projects covered by the impugned Judgment. We are also informed that as on date, even the condition of deposit of balance Rs.60 crores is also attained as on 04/05/2026 amount of Rs.60 Crores is deposited in the Cash and Accounts Department, Supreme Court of India. 7 We do not want to stretch the matter any further, as we find that the Hon’ble Apex Court itself relaxed the condition imposed upon Respondent No.2 Developer, by clarifying that since sum of Rs.40 Crores is already deposited and it is pertinent to note that on the date on which the PMC granted permission i.e. on 12/06/2019 to be followed by the subsequent permission, the amount of Rs.40 Crores was already deposited in the Supreme Court. The Petitioner, in our view, cannot take the advantage of the order of the Apex Court imposing a clear embargo as the Apex Court itself relaxed the said condition on 27/01/2020 and since we find that before grant of permission in favour of 5/6 23-WP-12871-2022.odt Respondent No.2, the stipulation of deposit of Rs.40 Crores was already achieved, we see no reason why the Petitioner should take advantage of the embargo. In any case, the learned senior counsel Mr.Kumbhkoni submit that he is bound by the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court that no further construction shall be carried out unless and until a green signal is given by the Charity Commissioner. Accepting and recording the said statement, we dispose of the Writ Petition. [ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.] [BHARATI DANGRE, J.] 6/6