13-WP.1824.2026.doc Salunke IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1824 OF 2026 Fatima Nalakath Sahusintavide & Ors. } Petitioner Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater } Mumbai & Ors. } Respondents Mr. E. A. Sasi with Mr. Tejas Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Shweta Patankar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 7. Mr. Rishikesh Soni with Mr. Ashwin Umrikar i/b. SHS Chambers, Advocates for Respondent No. 9. CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C.: 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant Petition is preferred, inter alia, seeking the following relief: - “(a) This Hon’ble may be pleased to issue Writ of mandamus, certiorari or any such other Writ, order or direction calling upon the Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 or any of the concerned Respondents to produce the relevant records and proceedings concerning the impugned orders and be further pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Orders (i) dated 28.02.2020 passed by the Respondent No. 7 being Exhibit – A hereto; and (ii) decision taken by the Respondent No. 2 on or about 12.08.2021 under No. DMC/ZV/OD/90 thereby earmarking an area of 130.09 sq.mtrs., in the proposed building plans, from the share of the Petitioner/owners, communicated vide development permission dated 10.09.2025 being Exhibit – B hereto.” 3. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Writ Petition has been raised by the learned counsel for the Respondents 1 JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE Digitally signed by JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE Date: 2026.09.13 15:17:47 +0530 13-WP.1824.2026.doc in the light of the alternate remedy of Appeal available to the Petitioner against the impugned orders. Moreover, it is submitted that, the order dated 10th September 2025 granting development permission, is appealable and the instant Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternate efficacious remedy as well as on disputed questions of facts raised, which cannot be pressed in writ jurisdiction. 4. Confronted with this objection, the learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly submits that the orders impugned in the Petition as also the order dated 10th September 2025, are assailed in Appeal, which is stated to be pending. 5. Considering the overall fact situation in this proceeding, we are not inclined to allow the parallel proceeding. In view thereof, the instant Writ Petition is Disposed Of with an observation that the pending Appeal/s be decided expeditiously, without inordinate delay. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 2