IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10075 OF 2026 Arisha Danish Ahmed Shafi & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Urban Development Department & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Shaikh Mohsin Mohd. Umar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 6. Mr. Devendra Singh with Mr. Amitesh Singh, Advocates for Respondent No.7. CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ. & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. DATE : 6th August, 2026. P.C. : 1. The Petitioners are some of the members of Chandresh Terrace Co-operative Housing Society Limited, that is due for redevelopment. The Petitioners have filed this Petition to challenge the notice dated 29th July, 2026 issued by Respondent No.2 declaring the building as dangerous and proposing it’s demolition on 30th July, 2026. 2. Mr. Umar, learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon a WP-10075-2026 Dixit Structural Audit Report dated 20th July, 2026, obtained by the Petitioners which states that the building requires immediate repair so as to avoid any untoward incident. The Report classifies the building as ‘C2A - To be Evacuated and/or partial Demolition requiring major structural repairs’. He submits that the Petitioners are willing to vacate the premises so that structural repairs can be carried out. The Petitioners’ principal objection is, however, to the redevelopment to be carried out by Respondent No. 7. Several other arguments in relation to inter se disputes between the members of the Society are also advanced, which we are not concerned with in this Petition. 3. Mr. Sakhadeo, learned counsel on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 to 6 tenders a compilation of documents containing 11 pages which is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. He submits that the building is in a precarious condition and relies upon the photographs annexed by the Petitioners at pages 242 to 248 of the Petition. He further submits that the Society has appointed a Structural Audit Consultant, who in it’s report has classified this building as ‘C1’ category. Accordingly, he submits that the building ought to be vacated forthwith and the officials of the Corporation ought not to be held WP-10075-2026 Dixit responsible or liable for any untoward incident that may occur between today and the time the members vacate their premises. 4. Mr. Singh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No.7, Developer, submits that the Society has executed a Development Agreement on 30th April, 2025 under which, the building has to be demolished and a new building shall be built on the said property. The Petitioners are obstructing the said process. Respondent No. 7 is willing to execute the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) with the Petitioners on the same terms and conditions, as is executed with the other members of the Society. 5. We have perused the record and find that the building is in a dilapidated condition and admittedly requires evacuation, even if it is only for repairs. The Petitioners are themselves ready to evacuate the building for this purpose. In such a situation, there is no question of entertaining the present Petition. 6. We also find that the Petitioners are lacking in bona fides. This Petition is filed by a group of members of the Society without impleading the Society as a party to this proceeding. The Society has WP-10075-2026 Dixit executed a Development Agreement with Respondent No.7 and the said Agreement is binding on all the Petitioners. Hence, it appears to us that the Petitioners have deliberately not impleaded the Society as a party Respondent in this Petition. The present Writ Petition is nothing, but, an attempt by a small group of members to frustrate the redevelopment process under the Development Agreement. This cannot be permitted as the Development Agreement binds the Petitioners. 7. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.10075 of 2026 is dismissed. It is clarified that the Respondents shall not be liable for any untoward incident that may occur if the buildings unfortunately collapse prior to the evacuation and it would be the Petitioners who shall solely held responsible for all costs, risks and consequences. [ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ] WP-10075-2026 Dixit SNEHA ABHAY DIXIT Digitally signed by SNEHA ABHAY DIXIT Date: 2026.08.11 17:19:02 +0530