Bombay High Court
RATHI SHANKAR SHETTYversusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court directed the trial court to decide the notice of motion on its merits, continued the ad‑interim protection, and disposed of the interim application.
Summary
The appellant, Rathi Shankar Shetty, appealed against the rejection of an ad‑interim relief (Roznama) dated 22 January 2025 that protected a disputed structure. The appellant contended that the trial court’s order failed to consider several documents, including a census certificate and a fire NOC dated 8 August 2016, and that some documents listed (serial nos. 7‑14) were not even produced by him, indicating a lack of independent judicial consideration. He sought continuation of the ad‑interim protection and an opportunity for the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to file an affidavit in reply. The High Court observed that the corporation had not independently applied its mind to the appellant’s documents and directed the trial court to hear the notice of motion on 13 August 2026, allowing the corporation to file its reply, while continuing the ad‑interim order. The court disposed of the interim application and ordered that the trial court decide the matter on its merits, uninfluenced by the interim protection.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the ad‑interim relief without considering the appellant’s documents.
- Whether the ad‑interim protection should be continued pending final determination of the notice of motion.
- Whether the Municipal Corporation should be given an opportunity to file an affidavit in reply before the final hearing.
Subjects
- ad‑interim relief
- interim protection
- municipal corporation
- unauthorized structure
- fire NOC
- census certificate
- procedural fairness
- notice of motion
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:28364
6-AO-63-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 63 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1156 OF 2025
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.63 OF 2025
Rathi Shankar Shetty …Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai ...Respondent
——————
Mr. Pradeep S. Thorat a/w Mr. Shubham S. Dubey and Ms. Aditi S. Naikar
i/b Mr. Ashutosh L. Shukla for the Appellant/Applicant
Mr. Prakash Shetty, C.A. of the Appellant is present
Mr. Sachin Vajale a/w Mr. Pradeep Patil i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi for the
Respondent-MCGM
——————
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : JULY 10, 2026
ORAL ORDER :
1. The Appeal from Order has been preferred against the rejection
of ad-interim relief by way of Roznama dated 22 nd January 2025. While
admitting the Appeal on 27th January 2025, ad-interim relief was
granted protecting the structure, which ad-interim relief is continued
from time to time, till date.
2. Mr. Thorat, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, would
SQ Pathan 1/3
6-AO-63-2025.doc
point out that the speaking order does not deal with the documents
produced by Appellant and points out that from Serial Nos. 7 to 14, the
documents which were not even submitted by the Appellant have been
taken into consideration, which indicates that the order is a copy-paste
order and there is no independent application of mind. He would
further point out that before the Trial Court, the census certificate was
produced showing the existence of the structure, the fire NOC dated
8th August 2016, all of which have not been considered by the Trial
Court. He would point out that the Motion is now listed for hearing on
13th August 2026 before the Trial Court and an opportunity can be
given to the Corporation to file its affidavit, and in the meantime, the
ad-interim protection which was granted by this Court can be
continued.
3. Prima facie, from the speaking order which has been passed, it
does not appear that the Corporation has independently applied its
mind to the documents submitted by Appellant, particularly in view of
the submission of Mr. Thorat that the documents at Serial Nos. 7 to 14
were not produced by the Appellant. The structure in question is
claimed to be an unauthorized structure comprising of ground plus
first floor, and the fire NOC dates back to the year 2016 in respect of
the same structure, apart from the census certificate which has been
SQ Pathan 2/3
6-AO-63-2025.doc
placed on record. All these documents are required to be considered
and an opportunity to be given to the Corporation to file its reply, so
that the Trial Court can have the benefit of considering the entire
material before passing the final order.
4. As the structure is already protected since the year 2025, the
Appeal from Order is disposed of by directing the Trial Court to decide
the Notice of Motion finally. The Notice of Motion is listed for hearing
on 13th August 2026, on which date, the Corporation shall file its
affidavit in reply. The Trial Court, at its convenience, to place the Notice
of Motion for hearing, on which date the advocates for the parties, to
make themselves available for arguments. It is expected that the
parties will cooperate with the Trial Court in disposing of the Notice of
Motion.
5. Till the hearing and final disposal of the Notice of Motion, the ad-
interim order granted by this Court is continued.
6. Needless to clarify that the Trial Court to decide the matter on
its own merits, uninfluenced by the protection granted by this Court or
the observations made in the present order.
7. The Interim Application does not survive for consideration and is
disposed of.
[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]
SQ Pathan 3/3
Checking your session…