(13)-WP-3453-25.doc PANCHAL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3453 OF 2025 Pritesh Narharibhai Patel ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ... Mr. Sunil Kumar a/w Mr. Siddharth Singh, Mr. Ishan Sarvya, Ms. Swati Singh & Ms. Muskan Palaskar i/by M/s. Kumar & Associates, for the Petitioner. Mr. Prashant Kamble, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2-State. Ms. K. H. Mastakar, for Respondent Nos.3 & 4-BMC. ... CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C.: 1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed, inter-alia, praying for the following substantive reliefs :- “(b) That, this Honourable Court be pleased to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing Writ of Mandamus and/or any appropriate Writ or Order or Director in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No.2 (i) to consider the Representation made by the Petitioner before the Respondent No.2 in July 2013 pursuant to the Order dated 10/05/2013 passed in Writ Petition No.579 of 2012 which is till date pending before the Respondent No.2, and, (ii) in case the said Representation of the Petitioner is not available in the office of the Respondent No.2, then a fresh liberty be granted to the Petitioner to approach the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for rehabilitation of alternate accommodation in * lieu of the Subject Structure i.e. R.C.C. Shed comprising of 7 Shops lying and being on the Plot of Land bearing Final Plot ION No.12 of Town Planning 1 BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL Digitally signed by BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL Date: 2026.09.30 10:46:47 +0530 (13)-WP-3453-25.doc Scheme No. II, Borivali, corresponding to C.T.S. No. 30 (Part) of Village Kanheri, situated at M. G. Road, Borivali East, Mumbai-400 066 admeasuring 8000 Square Feet, within the Municipal Jurisdiction of R/Central Ward of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and within the limit of Registration Sub-District and District Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban, pursuant to the Orders dated 11/08/2004 bearing No. Τ.Ρ.Β. -4320/116/Pra. Ka./163/2000/UD, and, Order dated 22/03/2006 bearing No. T.P.B.-4320/116/Pra. Ka./163/2000/UD passed by the then Hon'ble Minister of the Respondent No.2, within the stipulated period as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper.” 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that despite the Petitioner’s representation in June, 2013 and repeated follow-ups, no decision was taken. In 2025, the Petitioner was informed that the representation was not traceable and was asked to submit a fresh representation. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner confines the relief to the extent that liberty be granted to the Petitioner to move a fresh representation before the Respondent No.2. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to delve into the merits. In case the Petitioner moves a fresh representation, within two weeks before the Competent Authority, we expect the Competent Authority of the Respondents to proceed and consider such representation preferred by the Petitioner in the light of the order dated 10th May, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 579 of 2012, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of this Order by the Petitioner, certainly 2 (13)-WP-3453-25.doc after giving ample opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders. 5. With the aforesaid directions, Writ Petition is Disposed Of, without adverting on merits of the matter. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 3