19-WP-12522-2026 (C).odt Pallavi IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12522 OF 2026 Eknath Shankar Jambulkar And Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority And Ors. ...Respondents ... Mr. Anil. Y. Sakhare, Sr. Advocate i/b. Pradeep Dubey for the Petitioner. Mr. Hardas Singh Aland (VC) Proposed Intervenor. Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – P.M.R.D.A. Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, GP a/w Mr. K.B. Dighe, Addl. GP and Mr. S.P. Kamble, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ... CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C.: 1. This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following substantive reliefs:- “(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the Notice dated 06th February 2019 issued under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act (Exhibit "A" hereto) and the consequential order dated 13th February 2026 issued under Section 53(1) of the MRT Act (Exhibit "B" hereto); 1 PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Digitally signed by PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Date: 2026.09.28 11:17:05 +0530 19-WP-12522-2026 (C).odt (b) That this Hon'ble pleased to issue a writ of certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside impugned order dated 23rd April 2026 passed by the Respondent No.1 for regularization (Exhibit "G" hereto) and impugned order dated 24th July 2026 passed by Respondent No.3 through the Urban Development Department (Exhibit "N" hereto); (c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to hear the regularization application afresh after due consideration of all documents with liberty to the Petitioner to file further documents before the Respondent No.1, including those filed before the Respondent No.3; (d) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the effect and implementation of the Notice dated 6th February 2019 issued under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act (Exhibit "A" hereto) and the consequential order dated 13th February 2026 issued under Section 53(1) of the MRT Act (Exhibit "B" hereto) till such decision on the regularization application by the Respondent No.1.” 2. At the outset, Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo, learned counsel for the Respondent raises an objection qua the maintainability of the instant Writ Petition. This in light of the categorical undertaking dated 11th June 2026 furnished by the Petitioner No.2 in the earlier round of litigation in Writ Petition No.7239 of 2026 (Sheetal Eknath Jambhulkar vs. Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority & Ors.) passed on 11th June 2026. We have also perused upon paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said undertaking, being a part of the said judicial order, which are reproduced as under for ready reference:- 2 19-WP-12522-2026 (C).odt “4. Without prejudice to my rights and contentions in the pending appeal and in the present proceedings, I hereby undertake that in the event any portion of the existing structure is found eligible and permissible for regularisation by the competent authority, such regularised portion be allowed to be retained in accordance with law. 5. I further undertake that in the event any portion of the existing structure is found to be not capable of being regularised under the applicable provisions of law, I and/or my husband shall, at our own costs and expenses and without raising any objection, remove and demolish such offending and non- regularisable portion of the structure within a period of eight weeks or such time as may be granted by the or directed by this Hon'ble Court.” 3. In view of the categorical undertaking furnished before the Co-ordinate Bench, as noted above, we are not inclined to permit the Petitioners to resile from the undertaking given to this Court. Consequently, no case is made out for us to intervene in this Petition, qua the impugned order, which in our view, warrants no interference. 4. In the afore-mentioned backdrop, after arguing the matter for some time, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners fairly submits that some more time may be accorded to Petitioners remove/demolish the unauthorised construction, on the ground that the same is their only 3 19-WP-12522-2026 (C).odt residential home, which is denied by the Respondents. Be that as it may. 5. Accordingly, we grant further three weeks’ time and no more to the Petitioners to remove/demolish the said offending /unauthorised structure, which is not regularised. 6. In view of the above, Writ Petition is Dismissed. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 4