17-WP-10303-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10303 OF 2026 Kushal R Agarwal ..Petitioner Versus Mumbai Municipal Corporation Through The Municipal Corporation and Ors …Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 24883 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 10303 OF 2026 Mr. M. M. Vashi, Senior Advocate, with Itisha Ranka, i/b M.P. Vashi and Associates, for the Petitioner. Adv. Pooja Khandeparkar, with D.R. Kawale, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 -BMC. Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate, with Karl Tamboly, Shlok Parekh, Yash Dhruva, Ruchita Jain, Rajlaxmi Pwar and Shanmukh Puranik, i/b MDP Legal, for Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Mr. Pradeep Thorat, i/b Aditi Naikare, for Respondent No. 6. Mr. Ashwajeet Adhav, JEBF, ‘D’ Ward, present. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER 2026 ORDER: 1. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner assails the legality and validity of a communication dated 13th July 2026 issued by the Assistant Engineer (B & F) ‘D’ Ward, Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation (“BMC”) (R2), thereby informing the ARS 1/6 ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2026.09.15 16:47:18 +0530 17-WP-10303-2026.DOC Petitioner that the Plans; the copies of which were issued to the Petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005 (“the RTI Act”), are null and void. 2. The Petitioner was desirous of purchasing a flat, being Flat No. 9, Malboro House (originally known as “Kamani House”), CS No. 4E/738, Malabar Hill, Pedder Road, Mumbai. The Petitioner claimed to have filed an Application with the Punblic Information Officer, BMC seeking all documents in regard to the said property. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner was furnished a number of documents including a Repairs NOC granted by the office of Respondent No.2 to M/s Kamani Brothers, along with a signed Plan dated 3rd May 1972 and Repairs permission dated 10th August 1995, with a copy of duly signed plan. 3. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, who are the members of the Respondent No. 6-Housing Society which holds Malboro House, purportedly lodged a complaint recording the authenticity and genuineness of the above referred plants furnished to the Petitioner under RTI Act and alleged that those plans were forged and fabricated. 4. Thereupon, Respondent No.2 seems to have ascertained the facts and entered into internal correspondence with the Executive Engineer (Building Proposal) City- I of BMC. On the basis of the response to the Office Note, Respondent No.2 informed the Petitioner that the above referred plans furnished to the Petitioner under RTI Act were not ARS 2/6 17-WP-10303-2026.DOC available on the record of the Executive Engineer (Building Proposal) City-I and there was a final approved building plan dated 13th October 1967 in respect of Malboro House with the said office. Further noting that there were discrepancies in the plans furnished to the Petitioner, Respondent No.2 informed the Petitioner that, above-referred plans issued to the Petitioner under the RTI Ac are null and void. 5. Mr. Vashi, the learned Senior Advocate, for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order suffers from multiple legal infirmities. First, Respondent No.2 is not empowered to declare the plans furnished by the BMC under RTI Act as null and void. Second, the impugned communication is in teeth of fundamental principles of judicial process as no opportunity was given to the Petitioner before arriving at the conclusion that the above-referred plans were not genuine. Third, the aforesaid plans were issued by the Building and Factory Department which was empowered to grant Repairs permission and thus their non availability with the Building Proposal Department was of non significance. Fourth, there is nothing to indicate that the purported plan of the year 1967 is the sanctioned building plan. 6. Mr. Thorat, the leaned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 6-society supplemented the submission of Mr. Vashi. It was urged that without providing an opportunity of hearing to Respondent No.6-Society, Respondent No. 2 could not have issued the impugned communication ARS 3/6 17-WP-10303-2026.DOC which had the effect of rendering the structures in the Malboro House unauthorised. 7. Ms. Pooja Khandeparkar, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-BMC and Mr. Ashish Kamat, the learned Senior Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 questioned the very maintainability of the Petition. 8. Ms. Khandeparkar submitted that Respondent No.2 has simply communicated the position as it obtains from the record of BMC. Development/Building permission can be granted by the Building Proposal Deparment. Building and Factory Department has no authority to sanction a building plan. 9. I have perused the impugned order and the material on record. It is a stated case of the Petitioner that he was supplied the copies of the Repairs plans of the year 1972 and 1995. What the impugned communication in essence informs the Petitioner is that, those Repairs plans do not find place on record of the Executive Engineer (Building Proposal) City-I and that the Building Proposal Department has informed that there is a sanctioned plan of the year 1967. This becomes evident from the copy of the communication dated 3rd July 2026, addressed by the Assistant Engineer (Building Proposal) Department (which is the basis of impugned communication). It reads as under: ARS 4/6 17-WP-10303-2026.DOC “ Ref: Note received from Designated Officer (B & F) ‘D’ Ward u/no. OACD/542/214/B&F dated 19.06.2026. Reference is requested to note received from Designated Officer (B&F) ‘D’ Ward requesting to confirm authenticity of plans of approved building on plot bearing CS No. 4E/738 of Malbar Hill Division in the alleged complaint matter. The copies of the attached plans are checked for verifying authenticity. In this regard, it is to inform you that, the copies of plans attached alon giwth the note from D.O. (D Ward) are not available on record of this office. Therefore the authenticity of same cannot be verified. Further, as per this office available records, the plans bearing no. EB/9838/D dated 13.10.1967 are available. The copies of the plans on this office record are attached herewith for your ready reference. (pageC/25 to C/41).” 10. The essential controvery thus boils down to the genuineness, legality and validty of the plans. Whther the plans purportedly issued by the Building and Factory Department authorising the repairs of the Malboro Building are genuine or otherwise, or for that matter, the sanctioned building plan of the year 1967 is genuine and holds the field or whether any rights and obligations emanate from the repairs plans of the year 1972 and 1995, authorising the repairs, are all matters which are rooted in facts. ARS 5/6 17-WP-10303-2026.DOC 11. In the considered view of this Court, the impugned communication is not amenable to interference in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Nor this Court would not be justified in delving into the aforesaid disputed questions of facts in the exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The Petitioner would be required to workout his remedies before an appropriate forum seeking appropriate reliefs in regard to the plans in question. 12. The Petition stands dismissed with liberty to workout the remedies as avilable in law. 13. In view of the dismissal of the Petition, the Interim Application stands disposed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] ARS 6/6