21-WP-2589-2026 (OS).doc Mayur IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2589 OF 2026 Suleman Mohammed Hussain Wawda ...Petitioner Versus The Municipal Corporation For Greater Mumbai & Ors ...Respondents ... Mr. Aseem Naphade, a/w Ms. Ambrin Khan, Mr. Sahil Salvi, Ziman Kha, Mr. Omar Khaiyan Shaikh, for the Petitioner. Ms. Shweta Patankar, for the Respondent No. 1-BMC. Ms. Rukshin Ghaira, (through V.C), a/w Mr. Ishwar Ahuja, i/b Saga Legal. ... CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C.: 1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the instant petition has been preferred, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs :- “(a) To admit the present Writ Petition and issue Rule; (b) To issue writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus order or direction against Respondent No. 1/MCGM to act against Respondent No.2 & 3 in terms of complaint letter dated 25th March 2026 (Exh - J) and 30th April 2026 (Exh - L) and demolish the illegal horizontal and vertical extension as well as remove the illegal water connection. (c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and direct Respondent No.1 to visit the premises and file report as to factual 1 MAYUR KONDIRAM ADANE Digitally signed by MAYUR KONDIRAM ADANE Date: 2026.09.13 16:42:01 +0530 21-WP-2589-2026 (OS).doc position relating to illegal unauthorised extension as well as illegal water connection before this Hon'ble Court. (d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order inquiry against the officers responsible for protecting this illegal and unauthorized construction of Respondent No.2 & 3. (e) Interim and ad-interim relief in aforesaid terms be granted; (f) Cost of this Writ Petition be provided for; (g) Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the complaint which is made against the private respondent who has instituted the L.C. Suit No. 424 of 2025, vide an order dated 17th November 2025 was passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai, granting injunction in the said proceeding. The said order was assailed by the Petitioner by filing an Appeal from Order. 3. Learned counsel submits that both the orders as afore- mentioned, were challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26995 of 2026, Suleman M.H. Wawda Vs. Laxmansingh Narayansingh Parke & Ors. 3. It is pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide an order dated 18th August 2026, has stayed the effect and operation of the order passed by the Trial Court as well as the High Court, until further orders. 4. It is submitted in this backdrop as there is no impediment, the complaint of the Petitioner should be entertained by the Competent Authority of the Respondent. 2 21-WP-2589-2026 (OS).doc 5. Be that as it may. For the above reasons, we are not inclined to delve into the merits of the matter, at this stage. This is mainly because the complaint of the Petitioner can be decided in accordance with law. 6. Considering the factual situation as has emerged, we expect the concerned Authority to consider and entertain the complaint of the Petitioner on its merits and in accordance with law. In case there is no other impediment, the Authority of the Respondent is at liberty to proceed accordingly. 7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands Disposed of. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 3