16-WP.3265.2026.doc Salunke IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3265 OF 2026 Bhoomi Shaswat Estate Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. } Petitioners Versus The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation } & Ors. } Respondents Mr. Nishant Chothani with Mr. Vikas Maniar, Ms.Sneha Patil, Ms. Aditi Sinha i/b. Maniar Srivastava Associates, for the Petitioner. Ms. Shweta Patankar, Advocate for Respondents-BMC. CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C.: 1. We have heard Mr. Nishant Chothani, the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. Shweta Patankar, the learned counsel for Respondents-BMC. 2. The instant Writ Petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs: - “a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order and direction quashing and setting aside the Special Notice dated 12 th August 2024 (Exhibit ‘H’ hereto); b) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order and direction calling for the records, papers and proceedings culminating into the issuance of the Impugned Warrant dated 2nd March 2026 (Exhibit ‘M’ hereto) and after examining the legality, validity and propriety thereof, be pleased to quash and set aside the actions of the Respondents culminating into the issuance of the Impugned Warrant dated 2nd March 2026 (Exhibit ‘M’ hereto); 1 JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE Digitally signed by JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE Date: 2026.09.11 11:05:14 +0530 16-WP.3265.2026.doc c) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to re-assess and re- calculate the property tax on the said Building by considering the Petitioners’ representations and complaints dated 6th September 2024, 8th November 2024, 21st January 2025, 11th March 2025 and 26th March 2026 in accordance with law.” 3. The learned counsel for the Respondents-BMC raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this Writ Petition and submitted that under section 217 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as “the MMC Act”), there has been a remedy of Appeal available to the Petitioners against the impugned orders/notices. She submits that since the Petitioner is already having the efficacious remedy under the MMC Act, there is no reason to bypass the said statutory remedy. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as emerged before us, we find that the substantial interest of justice would be subserved if the Petitioner prefers an Appeal along with the stay application within 10 days from today. If such an Appeal/Application is preferred, we expect the Appellate Authority/Court to deal with the Interim Application or the Appeal itself, expeditiously, without granting unnecessary adjournments to the parties. 5. With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 6. It is made clear that we have not adverted to the merits of the matter and all contentions of the parties are kept open. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 2