PDP 908-WP-2734-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2734 OF 2026 Rashmi Shah Thakkar & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents ... Ms. Fatima Barodawala a/w Suvarna Jadhav for Petitioners. Ms. K. H. Mastakar for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 – BMC. Smt. Fatima R. Lakadawala, AGP for Respondent Nos.5 and 6 – State. Mr. J. M. D’Silva with Jacqline D’Silva for Respondent Nos. 7 to 22. Mr. Virendra Tiwari (through V.C.) for Respondent Nos.23 to 25. ... CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By the instant Writ Petition, the Petitioners, inter alia, praying for the following substantive reliefs :- “a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to forthwith take appropriate action under the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, including under Section 354 thereof, in respect of the said building known as Rashmi Kunj, being a dangerous and dilapidated structure. 1 PDP 908-WP-2734-2026.doc b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to forthwith evacuate all persons in occupation and/or possession of the premises in the said building and to take consequential steps, including demolition of the said building, in the interest of public safety. c. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to consider and process the Petitioners’ building/redevelopment proposal in respect of the said property in accordance with law, and not to reject the same solely on the ground of non-cooperation or absence of consent/no-objection from Respondent Nos.21 to 23, subject to the rights and contentions of all parties, and, upon evacuation of the said building, to consider granting the requisite permissions and approvals to the Petitioners for redevelopment in accordance with law, including IOD, commencement permissions, utilization and/or purchase of transferable development rights, and all consequential or incidental approvals.” 2. What we find that the Petitioners claim certain rights over the property in question. However, the counter claim has also been submitted by the private Respondents. As in the instant proceeding, the entire claim is set up that the subject building is inhabitable, in dilapidated condition and at any point of time some untoward incident is likely to occur. A Complaint by the Petitioners is already moved before the Respondent Nos.1 to 4-BMC, which is said to be pending consideration. 3. At present, we are not inclined to advert on merits qua the rights of the parties. We leave it open to the parties to press qua the title, right and interest over the subject property before the competent 2 PDP 908-WP-2734-2026.doc Civil Court. However, as the grievance/complaint of the Petitioners, which is stated to be pending before the Respondent Nos.1 to 4- BMC, we expect the same may be redressed in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of uploading of this Order, but certainly after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to all stakeholders. 4 With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition is Disposed Of. 5. Needless to state, we have not adverted into the merits of the matter and all contentions of the parties are kept open. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 3 PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Digitally signed by PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2026.09.24 16:11:12 +0530