Sanjeev MittalversusState of Maharashtra

                                                                                        (4)-CP-421-26.doc

     PANCHAL

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BALAJI
          Digitally
          signed by
          BALAJI
          GOVINDRAO
                                    CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 421 OF 2026
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL   Date:
          2026.09.24
          10:51:48
          +0530
                                                    IN
                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 2609 OF 2026

                       Sanjeev Mittal                                           ...Petitioner
                            Versus
                       State of Maharashtra & Ors.                              ...Respondents
                                                             ...
                       Mr. Rishikesh Soni a/w Ms. Raveena Yaddav i/by Ms. Raveena
                       Yaddav, for the Petitioner.
                       Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, GP a/w Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP &
                       Mrs. G. R. Raghuwanshi, for the Respondent-State.
                                                            ...

                                       CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
                                               ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.

                                          DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026.

                       P.C.:
                       1.           The instant Contempt Petition is preferred alleging
                       therein that the Respondent No.2 has willfully and deliberately
                       disobeyed the order dated 16 th March, 2026 passed by the
                       Division Bench of this Court. For ready reference, the same is
                       reproduced hereunder :-

                               “1. The Petitioner wants this Court to issue directions to
                               Respondent No.2- Thane Municipal Corporation to remove
                               unauthorized encroachment alleged to be made by
                               Respondent No.3 private person in the common areas of the
                               building by name Lavino Kapoor Compound. It is true as per
                               provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning
                               Act, 1966, it is the responsibility of the planning authority to
                               take action for removal of the encroachment. It may be on a
                               private land or on a public land, or it may be in the private
                               building. It is very well true that to take any action, the



                                                             1
                                                              (4)-CP-421-26.doc


     planning authority is expected to follow the procedure laid
     down in the said Act and after arriving at the satisfaction
     they are supposed to take initial action.
     2. If the Petitioner claims that Respondent No.3 has done
     encroachment on a common area, certainly he has got right to
     make complaint to the planning authority i.e. corporation. It is
     the planning authority before whom only the complaint can be
     made about removal of unauthorized construction. The
     Petitioner through advocate’s notice dated 18 th November
     2025 has brought it to the notice of corporation about said
     unauthorized construction. It is his grievance that neither the
     corporation has taken any action nor informed to the
     Petitioner. That is why this Petition.
     3. Considering the limited reliefs we are inclined to grant
     relief. We do not find necessary to hear the Respondents. It is
     made clear that the Corporation is the final authority to take
     call on this complaint. It is for the corporation to decide
     whether any construction in the common areas is made and
     whether it is authorized. Even Respondent No.3 is to be
     heard. There are certain averments made in the Petition about
     right to hold the first floor and second floor premises and the
     lift. The Petitioner has also made certain averments about the
     history of his title. As, we are only issuing a direction to
     decide representation, we are not making any comment about
     the averments made in the Petition. We leave it to the decision
     of Respondent No.2. Hence, the following order:
                                  ORDER
          (i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
          (ii) The Respondent No.2- Thane Municipal Corporation is
          directed to decide the representation made through legal
          notice dated 18th November 2025 issued by the Petitioner
          within the period of three months from communication of
          the order.
          (iii) The Petitioner is directed communicate this order to
          Respondent No.2.
          (iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to take a decision about
          the grievance by following the procedure as laid down in
          MRTP Act and in Maharashtra Municipal Corporation
          Act.
     4. Writ Petition is disposed of.”



2.        Considering the order dated 16 th March, 2026, we
find that one more opportunity/indulgence is extended to the


                                     2
                                                     (4)-CP-421-26.doc


Respondent No.2 to comply with the order of this Court dated
16th March, 2026 within six weeks, failing which the Petitioner
would be at the liberty to move appropriate application for
recalling the order passed today. Copy of this order be served
upon the Respondents within one week from its uploading to
ensure necessary compliance.



3.        With the aforesaid directions, Contempt Petition is
Disposed Of.




[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]                      [CHIEF JUSTICE]




                               3