50-WP-4387-2025.doc Pallavi IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4387 OF 2025 Keshvi Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. The M.C.G.M. & Ors. … Respondents Mr. Amrut Joshi a/w Mr. Nishant Chothani and Mr. Yash Chheda, Mr. Nivit Srivastava and Mr. Bhavya R. Shah i/b. Maniar Srivastava Associates for the Petitioners. Ms. Sheetal Metakari i/b. Komal Punjabi and Mr. Rajendra B. Dhonde, Addl. Fire Officer for Respondent - BMC. Mr. Pankaj Savant, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Nikhil Jayakar & Mr. Mayank Vira i/b. Ms. Smita Sawant for the Respondent No.7. Mr. Ramprakash Pandey for Respondent No.8. CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C.: 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, we have perused the record. 2. A detailed counter affidavit dated 1st December 2025 has been filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 - BMC. It is apposite to mention here the complaint/grievance of the Petitioner was limited to the extent that the width of the road of less than 9 meters, contrary to 1 PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Digitally signed by PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Date: 2026.09.22 13:21:50 +0530 50-WP-4387-2025.doc the statutory requirement under the Act for processing such plan. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the Affidavit-in-reply are reproduced as under : “12. It is submitted that, as per the Architecture Plans, the subject plot abuts on 9.00 mtrs wide Topiwala Road towards West side. Further the L.S. has proposed 14.00 mtrs wide turning circle towards West side and opens spaces as 6.15 mtrs to 12.34 vmirs towards South side and states that the Maximum habitable area is accessible from the open spaces provided towards West and South side, from where specialized fire appliances from this department can be operated. 13. I say and submit that considering the above parameters the provisional fire safety approval was issued by Fire department of Respondent /BMC as per Reg. 10(5)(2), DCPR 2034. 14. I say and submit that later on due to complaint from the Petitioner for cancellation of the IOD dated 25.06.2025 granted to M/s, Sahakar Group/Respondent no.7 for the redevelopment of Narmada Niwas CHSL, situated on Plot bearing CTS No. 797 and 797/1-9, Village Pahadi, Goregaon (West), falling within P/S Ward, the Executive Engineer (Building Proposal) of the Respondent/BMC by a letter dated 12.11.2025 had requested Maintenance Department for status Report of Road as the complaint pertains to the existing road width leading to the said plot. It is alleged that the Road Width Status issued by the P/S Ward Maintenance Department does not reflect the actual site conditions and that the minimum width of the road is less than 9.00 meters as falsely represented by the Respondent no.7. 15. As per remarks of the Maintenance Department u/no. AC/PS/26059/AEM dated 17.11.2025, I say that the Maintenance Department of Respondent/BMC had issued Road Width Status reports to two different applicants 1. M/s. Tangents Design Cell on 20.12.2022 and 2. M/s. 3 Dimensional Consultants LLP on 13.06.2025 which are as follows:- a. In Status Report dated 20.12.2022. for the stretch Opposite Topiwala CHS, i.e.. from "E" to "F", the recorded road width was 10.00 meters and for the adjoining stretch opposite Pahal Avenue, i.e., from "A" to "B" and "B" to "C", the recorded 2 50-WP-4387-2025.doc widths were 9.30 meters and 9.20 meters respectively. b. As per status report dated 13.6.2025, for the stretch opposite Topiwala CHS. i.e.. from "A" to "B", three width measurements were taken 10.20 meters, 10.00 meters, and 9.90 meters and for the adjoining stretch opposite Pahal Avenue, i.e., from "B" to "C", three width measurements were recorded: 9.50 meters. 9.45 meters, and 9.60 meters. At both instances, the measurements recorded by Respondent BMC are approximately identical, with no material deviation. c. To ensure further clarity, a joint site visit was conducted on 10.11.2025 in the presence of the Executive Engineer (Building Proposal) and representatives of both M/s. Keshvi Developers Pvt. Ltd./Petitioner And M/s. Sahakar Developers/Respondent no.7. During the site visit, the road widths previously measured and recorded by Respondent BMC were re-verified and found to be consistent with the earlier measurements as issued by P/S ward. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-B, Exhibit-C and Exhibit-D are the copies of Status Report of the said Road width dated 20.12.2022. 13.6.2025 and 17.11.2025. d. Both the CTS No. 797 and CTS No. 798 are located at the dead end of the said road. A portion of the boundary of CTS No.798 meets the main entrance gate of CTS No.797, creating a slight offset at the end of the road. At this location, three perpendicular road width measurements were taken 13.80 meters, 16.30 meters and 9.00 meters directly in front of the gate of Narmada Niwas CHSL, The Petitioner's report about width 7.50 meters corresponds to a diagonal measurement taken fr the offset portion toward Topiwala Mall and does not repres the perpendicular road width. As per the standard engineer practices used for determining road width the width has to measured perpendicular to the alignment of road, the diago measurement submitted by petitioner does not align w standard engineering practices used for determining road width, I say and submit that, the above remarks shows factual and technical position of Respondent BMC regarding road width status of the road leading to Plot CTS No.797. I and submit that, furthermore, the road is a Municipal Road a maintained by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BM Also, municipal utilities such as the storm-water drain and str connection exist along this stretch. The road corresponds to C No. 746/1, as reflected in the Development Plan extract attach The road surface is developed with asphalt.” 3 50-WP-4387-2025.doc 3. A perusal of the above makes it clear that the Respondent - BMC has also carried out joint inspection/visit of the said road/site on 10th November 2025, in the presence of the parties to the proceedings, including the Petitioner and Respondent No.7. 4. In light of the above, we do not find any irregularity, much less illegality in the action of the Respondent – BMC which would warrant interference in writ jurisdiction. These are matters of measurement involving technical nuisances/expertise which the Respondent – BMC being the Competent Authority has duly carried out. Allegations of mistake and/or discrepancies in such exercise as urged by Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the Petitioner does not justify and/or warrant issuing any positive directions in these proceedings, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Confronted with the factual situation that has emerged and for the reasons noted above, we are not inclined to proceed further in the matter and/or issue any directions. 6. In our considered view, Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly Dismissed. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 4