14-WP-333-2026 (OS).odt Pallavi IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 333 OF 2026 Edgar Gaikwad ...Petitioner Versus Mumbai Municipal Corporation Through Its Commissioner ...Respondent ... Mr. Bhavesh Parmar a/w Rajesh Sahani and Pritham Konvare i/b. Devmanni Shukla i/b Daevmani Shukla for the Petitioner. Ms. Sheetal Metakari i/b. Komal Punjabi for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - BMC. ... CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C.: 1. We have heard Mr. Bhavesh Parmar, learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2. Ms. Sheetal Metakari, learned counsel appears for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation. 3. The instant Writ Petition is filed inter-alia, seeking the following substantive reliefs:- “(b) For a writ or an order in the nature of a writ of this Hon'ble Court directing the Commissioner of BMC either himself or through some senior official of BMC nominated and appointed by him to immediately and forthwith decide the Petitioner's representation dated 9.7.2025 1 PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Digitally signed by PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Date: 2026.10.01 11:56:30 +0530 14-WP-333-2026 (OS).odt (Exhibit A) within a fixed time frame after giving a personal hearing to the Petitioner; (c) For a writ or an order in the nature of a writ of this Hon'ble Court directing the Commissioner of BMC to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the Respondent No.2 for issuing under his name and signature the letter dated 9.9.2025 (Exhibit C) and thereby not perform his duty cast upon him under the law while dealing with the Petitioner's representation dated 9.7.2025 (Exhibit A).” 4. We are not inclined to issue a formal notice to the Respondents, as the Petitioner has confined the relief to the extent that his Representation dated 9th July 2025 (Exh.-A) be decided in accordance with law. 5. Mr. Bhavesh Parmar, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had made a detailed Representation dated 9th July 2025 addressed to the Commissioner, BMC, Mumbai along with three other senior officials of the Respondent No. 1 – Corporation. Such Representation was made in light of the liberty granted in terms of the order dated 7th May 2025 passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5401 of 2024 (Exh.-B). 6. Mr. Parmar contends that in response to Petitioner’s Representation dated 9th July 2025, the Respondent No. 2 - Assistant Engineer, (Building Proposal) H/West, in an arbitrary manner, issued a communication dated 9th September 2025 (Exh.- 2 14-WP-333-2026 (OS).odt C). However, according to Ms. Parmar, no decision is taken on the Petitioner’s representation by the Respondents, and the same is therefore, not disposed of in terms of the order of this Court dated 7th May 2025 (supra). 7. Considering the facts and circumstances as emerged before us, we clarify that if such Representation is moved before the Respondent – Corporation, we caution the Respondent – Corporation that the same be examined and decided in accordance with law and not with the sole object of denying the rightful claim of the parties. 8. Accordingly, we direct that the Petitioner’s Representation dated 9th July 2025 be decided by a Senior Officer of the Respondent No. 1 – Corporation, not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of uploading of this order. We expect that Respondent – Corporation will accord sufficient opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, while disposing such Representation, in accordance with law. 9. In light of the above directions, the Writ Petition is Disposed Of. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 3