42.WP.3388.2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3388 OF 2025 Raju Daniel … Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. … Respondents Mr. Kaustubh Patil a/w. Roshan Sawant & Dixit Parmar for the Petitioner. Mr. Ashwin Sakotkar a/w. Ms Sheetal Metakari i/b. Ms. Komal for Respondent – BMC. CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondent-Corporation. 2. The instant Writ Petition is preferred, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs: “a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order- and/or direction as it deems fit, thereby calling upon the Respondents, particularly Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, to produce all records in respect of the demolition carried out on 2nd January, 2023 of the Petitioner's premises i.e. Residential Room No. 1 admeasuring about 300 sq.ft, Qureshi Industrial Compound, Behram Baug. Opp. Lashkariya Tower, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai 400102; b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to initiate appropriate action against the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 for demolishing the Petitioner's premises without following due process of law; (c) That this Hon'blc Court be pleased to permit the Petitioner to re-erect his residential premises i.e. Residential Room No. 1 admeasuring about 300 sq. ft, Qureshi Industrial Compound, AKN 1 ANANT KRISHNA NAIK Digitally signed by ANANT KRISHNA NAIK Date: 2026.09.24 11:04:13 +0530 42.WP.3388.2025.doc Behram Baug, Opp. Lashkariya Towcr, Jogeshwari (Wcst), Mumbai 400102 at the same location as it stood prior to the illegal demolition carried out on 2nd January, 2023.” 3. At the outset, learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that at no point in time any such notices were being served upon to the Petitioner qua the residential premises. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that admittedly the Petitioner on the strength of some electricity connection bill tried to impress to the Court that the property was also used for the commercial purpose. He submits that the reliefs as prayed for under the facts and circumstances are sustainable and accordingly adequate compensation may also be accorded. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent-BMC resisted the reliefs and submitted that the Designated Officer under section 351(1) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short “the MMC Act”) has been appointed to exercise the powers and functions under Sections 351, 352, 352A and 354A of the MMC Act. The Schedule was also provided in the notice issued under section 351(1A) of the MMC Act dated 11/11/2022. 5. He submits that it is an admitted case that there was no sanctioned plan. The construction was totally unauthorized without any such approved plan merely on the basis of purported electricity bill connection would not serve or substantiate the rights of the Petitioner. It is pressed before the Court that the Petitioner has failed to substantiate the rights on the basis of illegal construction over the scheduled property. He submits that the Notice has been issued to the Petitioner and the same has also been affixed at the door and the objections have also been filed. Admittedly, the demolition has also been carried out way back in the year 2023, AKN 2 42.WP.3388.2025.doc which is disputed. Such said disputed facts cannot be pressed in writ jurisdiction. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the records. In the facts and circumstances, we put a pointed query to the Petitioner’s Counsel whether at any point of time due permission was accorded by the Competent Authority under the MMC Act and the response to this is negative. It is admitted case that no such permission was ever accorded qua the said construction. Pursuant to the Notice dated 11th November, 2022 issued under the MMC Act, 1888, the proceedings have been finalized. 7. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the instant proceedings, which warrants any interference under the Writ jurisdiction. However, the dismissal of this Petition would not come in the way of the Petitioner to agitate his case/grievances before the competent Civil Court in accordance with law, qua the reliefs as pressed for by the Petitioner in the Writ Jurisdiction. We make it clear, that we have not adverted into the merits of the matter. 8. The Writ Petition is Disposed Of in the above terms, keeping open the issue of limitation, if so raised. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] AKN 3