909.WP-3576-2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3576 OF 2025 Mahammed Hasan Shastikar ….Petitioner Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. ….Respondents ---- Mr. Ranjeev Carvalho a/w. Mr. Uzair Kaize and Ms. J. Pereira for the Petitioner. Mr. Ramdas Hake a/w. Ms. Sheetal Metakari for the Respondent, the BMC. Mrs. Varsha Sawant, AGP for Respondent No.3. Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w. Mr. Zulfiqar Jariwala and Advocate Maryam Borsadwala i/b. Jariwala Associates for Respondent No.5. ---- CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ. & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. DATE : 20th AUGUST, 2026 P.C. :- 1. We have perused the ad-interim order passed by this Court on 2nd September, 2024. Respondent No.5 was specifically arrayed as a party by way of an amendment carried out by the Petitioner, on the ground that the Corporation was leaning favourably towards Respondent No.5 and that the Petitioner was being singled out for action against an offending structure. Gauri Gaekwad 1 of 4 GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD Digitally signed by GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD Date: 2026.08.21 10:38:00 +0530 909.WP-3576-2025.odt 2. Having considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides, it is now undisputed that the Petitioner has not even moved an application for regularisation of his mezzanine floor. After he received the impugned notice dated 2nd August, 2024, from the Corporation exercising powers under Section 351(1) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, and Sections 351, 352, 352A and 354A, an order dated 23rd August, 2024 was passed with regard to the unauthorised structure on the entire first floor. The Petitioner’s grievance was that different treatment was being meted out by the Corporation to different persons. 3. Today, the learned Advocate for the Corporation submits that, since the Petitioner did not tender any documents, the impugned order was passed on 23rd August, 2024. If the Petitioner files a proper application seeking regularisation, accompanied by appropriate documents as are required to be considered while dealing with such applications, the request for regularisation would be considered on its own merits. Gauri Gaekwad 2 of 4 909.WP-3576-2025.odt 4. Since the Corporation has made the above statement, we grant the same liberty to the added Respondent No.5 to file an application seeking regularisation, along with all relevant documents which the party may desire to annex. The Corporation would consider the applications of the Petitioner, as well as, Respondent No.5, on their own merits, strictly in accordance with law, and pass a reasoned order. The Corporation would refrain from taking a shifting stand with regard to both these applications and shall apply the same parameters as are required to be applied while deciding such applications. 5. If these parties make such applications for regularisation within a period of 15 days from today, the Corporation would deal with the said applications within a period of 60 days thereafter and pass a reasoned order. We record the fact that Respondent No.5 has, by himself, removed the offending structure. His application would now be at par with the application of the Petitioner and, if regularisation is granted to the Petitioner, the added Respondent would then be at liberty to construct the mezzanine floor as per the permission granted by the Corporation. Gauri Gaekwad 3 of 4 909.WP-3576-2025.odt 6. In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off. 7. All contentions of all the parties are kept open. (GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) Gauri Gaekwad 4 of 4