19-wp-3604-26.doc - corrected INGALE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3604 OF 2026 Raees Madarsa and Welfare Society (Masjid) ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents ... Mr. A.N.Giri a/w Mr. Sagar Batavia, for the Petitioner. Mr.Milind V. More, Addl. GP, for the Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Akshay Shinde, for Respondents No. 2 & 3. ... CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C.: 1. We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned AGP appearing for the Respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for the Respondents No. 2 & 3. 2. The instant Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred seeking the following substantive reliefs. “a) That a writ of certiorari, writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued calling for the records and after examining the legality and proprieties of the proceeding order dated 23rd June, 2026 passed/issued by respondent No.3 be quashed and set aside. 1 URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Digitally signed by URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Date: 2026.09.18 16:27:31 +0530 19-wp-3604-26.doc - corrected b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this writ petition the operation of order dated 23rd June, 2026 passed/issued by respondent No.3 be stayed.” 3. We find that while passing the order, initially notice was served under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“the said Act of 1966”, for short) indicating therein that in view of the Government of Maharashtra Circular No. Petition/2014/No.219 (Part 4/UD- 20 dated 05/11/2016, instructions were issued to implement the said proceedings as per time bound schedule. Whereas, the subject Madarsa is located at G Block, Bandra East, Mouje Kole Kalyan, Taluka, Andheri (opposite MTNL), fell within the Costal Regulation Zone and was classified under ‘Category B’ for demolition. 4. Accordingly, the demolition has been carried out in the year 2018 and admittedly, while issuing a Notice on 15/09/2025, it has also been indicated that in lieu thereof Unit No. 08 in Building 19A of Hiranandani Mankhurd Colony was allotted. Admittedly, alternative site has accorded. Instead of occupying the said allotted site, the Petitioner indulged in unauthorised construction at the initial/earlier site. 2 19-wp-3604-26.doc - corrected 4. Learned counsel for the Respondents, in this background, raised the objection that the said Act of 1966 is a self contained Act. Admittedly, the Notice has been issued and later on, after carrying out demolition, the alternative site has also been allotted. It is also admitted case that till date, no such effort has been ever made to accord any such permission for raising construction even though the exhaustive procedure in this regard, is enshrined under the Section 45 of the said Act of 1966. In case any such effort will be made, definitely, the same can be initiated by the authority. During the midst of the arguments, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that till date, alternate site has not been settled in favour of the Petitioner. 5. Be that as it may. Without entering into merits of the case, as actual demolition is carried out, at this stage, we are not inclined to interfere with the issue of alleged demolition. However, the Petitioner insists for alternative site. It is always expected that an Application to that effect shall be processed in the light of the Notice/Communication dated 15/09/2025 expeditiously, preferably, within a period of 3 3 19-wp-3604-26.doc - corrected months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 6. The Writ Petition is Disposed Of in the above terms, leaving all contentions of parties open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 4