Bombay High Court
Kuldeep Dattatraya SuryavanshiversusPune Municipal Corporation, Through its Authorized Officer
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The writ petition is disposed of without adjudicating its merits, directing the municipal corporation to decide the pending application within three months.
Summary
Kuldeep Dattatraya Suryavanshi filed a writ petition against Pune Municipal Corporation alleging that the road widening and demarcation work carried out by the corporation was inconsistent across private plots, with some plots receiving only front‑side widening. The petitioner sought the court’s intervention to compel the corporation to complete rear‑side widening where omitted. The corporation and other respondents argued that the matter should be decided by the municipal authority under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, and that the parties should be given a hearing. The High Court, after hearing counsel, declined to examine the merits of the petition and, with the parties’ consent, disposed of the writ. It directed that the pending statutory legal notice dated 4 November 2025 be decided by the municipal corporation within three months, without the court adjudicating the substantive issues.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition on its merits or refer the matter to the municipal corporation under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a court‑ordered direction for completion of rear‑side road widening.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- road widening
- municipal corporation
- writ petition
- statutory legal notice
- administrative law
- jurisdiction
Judgment
30-WP-9633-2026 (C).odt
Pallavi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by PALLAVI
MAHENDRA
PALLAVI
MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR
WARGAONKAR Date:
2026.09.11
19:34:45
WRIT PETITION NO. 9633 OF 2026
+0530
Kuldeep Dattatraya Suryavanshi ...Petitioner
Versus
Pune Municipal Corporation,
Through Its Authorized Officer ...Respondent
...
Mr. Mahindra Deshmukh for the Petitioner.
Mr. Manan Sharma, Piyush Sharma and Ms. Payal Sharma for
Respondent No.6.
Mr. Shashank Bhondave i/b. Manoj Kumar Mishra for the
Respondent No.7 - IDFC Bank.
...
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.:
1. We have heard Mr. Mahindra Deshmukh, learned counsel for
the Petitioner. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits at
present, through an Application dated 4th November 2025 which is a
Statutory Legal Notice under the Bombay Provincial Municipal
Corporation Act, 1949, the Petitioner has ventilated his grievance.
This in regard to road widening and physical demarcation of the
same which is inconsistent with the larger layout comprising of
private plot Nos.1 to 17.
2. Mr. Deshmukh would submit that the Respondent Nos.1 to 3
1
30-WP-9633-2026 (C).odt
i.e. Pune Municipal Corporation have provided only front side of
road widening. Private Plot No.9 belonging to Respondent No.6 has
not provided any rear-side road widening. Further, the Petitioner’s
plot bearing Nos.10A+10B have been provided both front and rear-
side widening, whereas, private plot nos.11 to 17 have only provided
front side road widening.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that for
the present purposes, the above aspects can be examined by the
Municipal Corporation in accordance with law. Accordingly, he
would submit that the reliefs sought in the Petition be confined to
the Application/ Statutory Legal Notice dated 4th November 2025,
which is stated to be pending consideration. This may be decided
expeditiously.
4. Mr. Manan Sharma, learned counsel for Respondent No.6 and
Mr. Shashank Bhondave, learned counsel for Respondent No.7 have
appeared. They submit that once the matter is relegated to the
Municipal Corporation which is constituted under the Pune
Municipal Corporation, the relief as pressed before this Court, can
be examined by the Corporation. However, the opportunity of
hearing is to be extended to the respective parties.
5. Considering the factual situation as emerged, we are not
inclined to advert the matter on merits. With the consent of the
2
30-WP-9633-2026 (C).odt
parties, the instant Writ Petition stands disposed of with an
observation that the Application dated 4 th November 2025 be
decided on its merits and in accordance with law, within a period of
three months from the date of issuance of certified copy of this
order.
6. Suffice to this, we have not adverted to the merits of the case.
With the above observations and directions, the instant Writ
Petition stands Disposed Of.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
3
Checking your session…