5-WP-10622-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10622 OF 2022 Prakash Kuvarji Gala .....Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .....Respondents ..... Ms. Neeta Karnik, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Sonal Dabholkar, for the Petitioner. Mr. S.R.Nargolkar, for the Respondent Nos.3 and 5. Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo for the Respondent Nos.2 & 4 – CIDCO. Smt. R.M.Shinde, A.G.P for the Respondent – State. ..… CORAM : M. S. KARNIK & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 17th SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C.:- 1. By the present Petition, the Petitioner is seeking direction against the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to take action as per the provisions of Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act and Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. A prayer is made to decide the representation filed by the Petitioner and to take action of demolition of the illegal construction made by the Respondent Nos. 6 Wakodikar 1/4 RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR Digitally signed by RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR Date: 2026.09.18 10:44:47 +0530 5-WP-10622-2022.doc to 9. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Ms. Neeta Karnik, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner argued that the Respondent - Corporation is protecting the illegal structures of the Respondent Nos. 6 to 9. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, stated that the entire construction is illegal and that it should be demolished forthwith. It is pointed out that there is a representation made by the Petitioner to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to take action of demolition of the illegal constructions made by the Respondent Nos 6 to 9. However, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are not discharging their duties and are sitting tight on the representations of the Petitioner. 4. When we put a query to the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 as to why they were not taking any action against the structures, it was stated by the learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation that a suit was filed in which protection was granted to the structure of the Respondent Nos. 6 to 9. The learned Wakodikar 2/4 5-WP-10622-2022.doc Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner at that stage, interjected and pointed out that the protection is granted only to one structure, and that other structures are not protected. 5. In these premises, we feel it fit to direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to decide the representations of the Petitioner, which are pending before them. The Respondent - Corporation i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 shall take action against the structures where there is no protection granted by the Civil Court. In case there is no legal impediment in taking action against the structure, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, shall forthwith give notices to the occupants of offending structures, and if it is found that the structures are illegal, then action be taken to demolish the same by following due process of law. Needless to state that the affected persons should be granted an opportunity of hearing. In case of structure where interim relief is in operation, then the Corporation shall take appropriate steps to forthwith get the interim relief vacated or for the suit to be expedited. 6. It is open for the Petitioner to make an application for his Wakodikar 3/4 5-WP-10622-2022.doc impleadment in the said civil suit. The Trial Court to consider such applications on its own merits expeditiously. 7. In case the learned Trial Court vacates the stay and/or in the event the suit filed by the owner of the concerned offending structure is dismissed, the Corporation shall forthwith take action for the purpose of demolition of the structures if the same is found illegal. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. 9. We have not commented anything upon the legality of the said structures, and the Corporation is free to decide the legality of the structures and take appropriate action strictly as per law. (SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.) Wakodikar 4/4