PDP 16-WP-4497-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4497 OF 2026 Hussain Abbasali Khan .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents ... Mr. A. A. Siddiquie a/w Mr. Chowdhari Moin i/by A. A. Siddiquie & Associates for the Petitioner. Mr. Vikrant Parshurami, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 4 – State. Ms. Sheetal Metakari i/by Ms. Komal Punjabi for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 – BMC. … CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. By the instant Writ Petition, the Petitioner prays for the following substantive reliefs: - “(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 to forthwith completely and physically demolish the unauthorized vertical structure erected by Mr. Pappu Siddiqui Khan at Siddiqui Mohammad Chawl, Gavdevi Road, Poisar, Kandivali (E), Mumbai 400 101, in strict enforcement of the Speaking Order dated 12th December, 2024 (Exh.C); (b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or 1 PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Digitally signed by PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2026.09.29 10:19:01 +0530 PDP 16-WP-4497-2026.doc direction, directing Respondent No.1 to initiate a strict departmental enquiry and disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No.3, the concerned stall of Respondent No.2 and the concerned officers of Respondent No.4 for their gross dereliction of duty, malafide inaction, filing of sham demolition reports, and connivance in protecting the unauthorized structure; (c) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 to submit a detailed compliance report, photographic evidence, and the final physical Demolition Panchanama to this Hon’ble Court within a time-bound period;” 2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. In view of the order that we propose to pass today, we are not inclined to issue notice to the Respondents or keep the matter pending. However, the Petitioner is directed to supply copy of the Writ Petition to the learned Counsel for the Respondents. 3. The Petitioner, who is a complainant, approached this Court for a direction to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3-Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, which is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently submits that as the mandatory duty is cast upon the Corporation to ensure that there may not be any such development/construction, except in accordance with law. 4. He submits that on 5th December, 2024, the Respondent No.3 issued a statutory Stop Work Notice under Section 354(a) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 to the alleged encroacher one Mr. Pappu Siddiqui Khan. In response to the Stop Work Notice, a reply letter dated 10th December, 2024 was submitted by the said encroacher. The Respondent No.3 after scrutinizing the documents 2 PDP 16-WP-4497-2026.doc submitted by such alleged encroacher, passed a speaking Order on 12th December, 2024 declaring the subject structure as unauthorized and liable for demolition. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the demolition was carried out on 13th February, 2025. Realizing that the demolition was a mere sham to protect the illegal structure, the Petitioner filed an Application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 17th September, 2025, demanding final demolition report and the official Panchanama of the action taken by the Respondent No.3 on 13th February, 2025. However, an evasive reply dated 25th September, 2026 was issued, which mentioned that information regarding Panchanama is not available and the details of action taken is available on RETMS Portal. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the refusal to provide physical Panchanama confirms that no complete or lawful demolition was ever executed as per the speaking Order dated 12th December, 2024. He submits that inspite of the speaking Order dated 12th December, 2024 passed by the concerned Authority, till date the same has not been enforced. 6. Be that as it may. We are not inclined to advert into the merits of the matter. In the given fact situation, we observe that in case after the enquiry, it has been found certain construction has been carried out contrary to law, we expect the concerned Authority to take a final call expeditiously to ensure that speaking Order dated 12th December, 2024 is effectively complied with, if there are no other impediments, preferably within a period of three months from the production of the certified copy of this Order, before the Respondent- Authority, by the Petitioner. 3 PDP 16-WP-4497-2026.doc 7. In view of the above, Writ Petition is Disposed Of. 8. Needless to state, we have not adverted to the merits of the matter and all contentions are kept open. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 4