Bombay High Court
VASANTLAL KANJI CHARITABLE TRUSTversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court disposed of the contempt petition, directing the Municipal Corporation to communicate the speaking order and granting liberty to apply if it is not communicated.
Summary
The Vasantlal Kanji Charitable Trust filed a contempt petition alleging that the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (BMC) failed to comply with the Court's order dated 4 July 2024, which required disposal of the Trust's 29 November 2017 complaint and issuance of a speaking order by 29 August 2024. The Court noted that the BMC claimed a change of Assistant Commissioner necessitated a re‑hearing, and that a hearing was conducted on 5 October 2026 with the parties heard. The BMC assured that a final speaking order would be passed within two weeks and that the petitioner would be communicated the order. The Court recorded this assurance, directed that the speaking order be communicated to the petitioner, and emphasized that any aggrieved party could challenge the order in accordance with law. Consequently, the Court disposed of the contempt petition, stating it did not wish to keep it pending. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to apply if the speaking order is not communicated.
Issues considered
- Whether the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai breached the Court's 4 July 2024 order by not issuing a speaking order within the prescribed time.
- Whether the contempt petition should be continued or disposed of in view of the assurances given by the Corporation.
Subjects
- contempt
- municipal corporation
- speaking order
- court order compliance
- delay
- civil procedure
Judgment
6-conpw 58-26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ARJUN
MACHHINDRA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
KADAM
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 58 OF 2026
Digitally signed by
ARJUN IN
MACHHINDRA
KADAM WRIT PETITION NO. 3856 OF 2022
Date: 2026.10.07
18:30:42 +0530
Vasantlal Kanji Charitable Trust … Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ... Respondents
__________________________
Mr. Sahil Wagh i/b DM Legal Associates for the Petitioner.
Ms. R. M. Hajare i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi for the Respondent-
Corporation.
Mr. Rohan Bhoir, SE (Maint) K/S Ward present.
__________________________
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : 7th OCTOBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner alleges breach of the Order dated 4 th July,
2024 passed by this Court. This Court in paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 5
has observed thus:-
“3. The Petitioners had made a detailed
th
complaint/representation on 29 November 2017 inter
alia to the BMC raising this grievance.
4. Accordingly, we direct the BMC to dispose of the
Amk 1/3
6-conpw 58-26.doc
Petitioner’s complaint/representation dated 29th
November 2017 at Exhibit Q to this Petition in
accordance with law and in its own merits on or before
29th August 2024. Before deciding the representation, the
BMC should hear the Petitioners and the 5 th Respondent
and then pass a speaking order. Speaking order should be
communicated to the parties on or before 29th August
2024.
5. If any of the parties are aggrieved by the BMC’s
speaking order, they shall be at liberty to challenge the
same in accordance with law.”
3. Learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that due
to change of the Assistant Commissioner, the matter had to be re-
heard by the new designated Commissioner. Accordingly, the
petitioner as well as respondent No.5 were duly heard. The minutes
of the proceedings held on 5th October, 2026 at 3.00 p.m. are placed
on record. Learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that
respondent No.5 is being given a proper opportunity of producing
the documents and in any case within a period of two weeks from
today, a final order would be passed. The statement is made on
instructions from Mr. Rohan Bhoir, SE (Maintenance) K/S Ward, who
is personally present in the Court.
4. The assurance is recorded. Speaking order be
communicated to the petitioner. In terms of the Order dated 4 th July,
Amk 2/3
6-conpw 58-26.doc
2024 passed by this Court, it has already been stated that if any of
the parties are aggrieved by the BMC’s speaking order, they shall be
at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. We do not
want to keep this contempt petition pending anymore.
5. The contempt petition is disposed of.
6. Liberty to apply if the speaking order is not
communicated to the petitioner.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Amk 3/3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.