15 wp 11248 of 2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11248 OF 2026 Jijus is Lord Church Trust ... Petitioner versus The Executive Engineer, Building Permission and Unauthorized Construction Control Dept. and Ors. … Respondent Mr. Kishor Ajetrao with Ms. Pooja Dalvi i/by Mr. Akash Dalvi, for Petitioner. Mr. Kedar B. Dighe, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 28 AUGUST 2026 ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to a judgment and order dated 25 August 2026 passed by the learned District Judge, whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against an order dated 7 January 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, PCMC Court, Akurdi, Pune, thereby rejecting the application for temporary injunction filed by the Petitioner in RCS No.146 of 2025, came to be dismissed. 3. The Petitioner had instituted the said suit seeking injunction to restrain the Respondents – Officers of the PCMC from acting upon the notice dated 9 June 2025 issued by the Municipal Corporation under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. By the said notice, the SSP 1/5 2026:BHC-AS:35505 15 wp 11248 of 2026.doc Respondents called upon the Petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction admeasuring 30 mtrs. X 15 mtrs. at Survey No.73/2. D. Rajwade Nagar, Kalewadi, Pune. It was, inter alia, contended that the said development has been carried out without the permission of the Planning Authority. 4. The learned Civil Judge did not accede to the prayer of the Petitioner – Plaintiff to stay the execution and operation of the said notice till the final disposal of the suit. The Petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the District Court. By an order dated 24 February 2026, the learned District Judge had rejected the application for interim relief during the pendency of the appeal. The Petitioner has approached this Court in WP No.3360 of 2026. By an order dated 18 March 2026, the said Petition was disposed with a direction to both the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the appeal, the hearing of which was directed to be expedited. By the impugned order, the learned District Judge has dismissed the Appeal ascribing justifiable reasons. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, at the time of hearing of the said Appeal, for the first time, it was disclosed that the Application preferred by the Petitioner for grant of permission / regularization came to be rejected by the Respondents. The said order was, however, not communicated to the Petitioner, as mandated by the provisions contained in SSP 2/5 15 wp 11248 of 2026.doc Section 45(4) of the Act, 1966. The Petitioner was, therefore, deprived of the statutory remedy of assailing the said order before the State Government. The Petitioner has a strong case on merits, and, therefore, the execution and operation of the impugned order be stayed till this petition is heard on merits. 6. Mr. Dighe, learned Counsel for the Respondents, strongly opposed the submissions on behalf of the Petitioner. It was urged that the reply filed by the Petitioner to the show cause notice itself makes it clear that, in the estimation of the Petitioner, the structure was temporary and the Petitioner was in the process of obtaining the permission of the planning authority by submitting a plan through an Architect. That implies that there was no permission for erection of the structure, in the first place. It was further submitted that, in view of the development in law, which frowns upon tolerance towards unauthorized construction, the Petition does not deserve to be entertained. 7. I have perused the material on record. Incontrovertibly, there was no permission for erection of the structure in question. The fact that the Petitioner’s trust is the owner of the land over which the structure is erected, is of no significance. Nor the nature of the activity which the Petitioner carries in the said structure has any bearing upon the question, which was required to be determined by the Courts below. Both the Courts, in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, have held that the structure was erected sans any SSP 3/5 15 wp 11248 of 2026.doc permission from the planning authority. 8. The legal position is well nigh settled. Suffice to make a reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Anr. V/s. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Ors.1 wherein the Supreme Court has emphasised that the constructions put up in violation of or deviation from the building plan approved by the local authority and the constructions which are audaciously put up without any building planning approval cannot be encouraged. Each and every construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the Rules. In the event of any violation being brought to the notice of the courts, it has to be curtailed with iron hands and any lenience afforded to them would amount to showing misplaced sympathy. 9. The learned District Judge has correctly appreciated the facts of the case and exercised jurisdiction not to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court. Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Petition against exercise of concurrent discretion by the Courts below. 10. The submission on behalf of the Petitioner that, the Petitioner was not communicated the order rejecting the permission, purportedly passed by the Planning Authority on 26 December 2025, also prima facie does not advance the cause of the Petitioner, as in the written statement filed on behalf of the 1 2024 INSC 990 SSP 4/5 15 wp 11248 of 2026.doc Respondents, on 4 April 2026, it was categorically contended that the application for permission / regularization was rejected by the Competent Authority. The Petitioner ought to have taken measures as available in law to assail the legality and propriety of the said order of rejection. 11. As regards the grievance of the Petitioner that the Petitioner was deprived of the liberty to avail remedy of appeal before the State Government under Section 47 of the MRTP Act, 1966, this Court does not deem it appropriate to delve into the thickets of facts as to whether the rejection of the building permission was communicated to the Petitioner. 12. Yet, to provide an efficacious opportunity and to rule out the possibility of prejudice to the Petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to give one week’s time to the Petitioner to approach the State Government assailing the order dated 26 December 2025 passed by the Planning Authority. 13. Thus, to facilitate the Petitioner to avail the remedies as available in law qua the said order dated 26 December 2025, till the expiry of the period of one week, no action be taken against the structure in question on the basis of the impugned notice. 14. Subject to the aforesaid liberty and protection for a limited duration, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 5/5 Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 29/08/2026 19:28:24