(4)-CP-421-26.doc PANCHAL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 421 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2609 OF 2026 Sanjeev Mittal ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ... Mr. Rishikesh Soni a/w Ms. Raveena Yaddav i/by Ms. Raveena Yaddav, for the Petitioner. Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, GP a/w Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP & Mrs. G. R. Raghuwanshi, for the Respondent-State. ... CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C.: 1. The instant Contempt Petition is preferred alleging therein that the Respondent No.2 has willfully and deliberately disobeyed the order dated 16th March, 2026 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. For ready reference, the same is reproduced hereunder :- “1. The Petitioner wants this Court to issue directions to Respondent No.2- Thane Municipal Corporation to remove unauthorized encroachment alleged to be made by Respondent No.3 private person in the common areas of the building by name Lavino Kapoor Compound. It is true as per provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, it is the responsibility of the planning authority to take action for removal of the encroachment. It may be on a private land or on a public land, or it may be in the private building. It is very well true that to take any action, the 1 BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL Digitally signed by BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL Date: 2026.09.24 10:51:48 +0530 (4)-CP-421-26.doc planning authority is expected to follow the procedure laid down in the said Act and after arriving at the satisfaction they are supposed to take initial action. 2. If the Petitioner claims that Respondent No.3 has done encroachment on a common area, certainly he has got right to make complaint to the planning authority i.e. corporation. It is the planning authority before whom only the complaint can be made about removal of unauthorized construction. The Petitioner through advocate’s notice dated 18th November 2025 has brought it to the notice of corporation about said unauthorized construction. It is his grievance that neither the corporation has taken any action nor informed to the Petitioner. That is why this Petition. 3. Considering the limited reliefs we are inclined to grant relief. We do not find necessary to hear the Respondents. It is made clear that the Corporation is the final authority to take call on this complaint. It is for the corporation to decide whether any construction in the common areas is made and whether it is authorized. Even Respondent No.3 is to be heard. There are certain averments made in the Petition about right to hold the first floor and second floor premises and the lift. The Petitioner has also made certain averments about the history of his title. As, we are only issuing a direction to decide representation, we are not making any comment about the averments made in the Petition. We leave it to the decision of Respondent No.2. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The Respondent No.2- Thane Municipal Corporation is directed to decide the representation made through legal notice dated 18th November 2025 issued by the Petitioner within the period of three months from communication of the order. (iii) The Petitioner is directed communicate this order to Respondent No.2. (iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to take a decision about the grievance by following the procedure as laid down in MRTP Act and in Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act. 4. Writ Petition is disposed of.” 2. Considering the order dated 16th March, 2026, we find that one more opportunity/indulgence is extended to the 2 (4)-CP-421-26.doc Respondent No.2 to comply with the order of this Court dated 16th March, 2026 within six weeks, failing which the Petitioner would be at the liberty to move appropriate application for recalling the order passed today. Copy of this order be served upon the Respondents within one week from its uploading to ensure necessary compliance. 3. With the aforesaid directions, Contempt Petition is Disposed Of. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 3