SHRI. PRAKASH KUVARJI GALAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS

                                                                  5-WP-10622-2022.doc


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 10622 OF 2022

    Prakash Kuvarji Gala                                       .....Petitioner
                Versus
    The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                            .....Respondents
                                  .....
   Ms. Neeta Karnik, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Sonal Dabholkar, for the
   Petitioner.

   Mr. S.R.Nargolkar, for the Respondent Nos.3 and 5.

   Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo for the Respondent Nos.2 & 4 – CIDCO.

   Smt. R.M.Shinde, A.G.P for the Respondent – State.
                                   ..…

                                         CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
                                                 SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
                                         DATE    : 17th SEPTEMBER 2026


   P.C.:-

   1.       By the present Petition, the Petitioner is seeking direction

   against the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to take action as per the

   provisions          of      Maharashtra   Municipal   Corporation    Act      and

   Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. A prayer is made to

   decide the representation filed by the Petitioner and to take action of

   demolition of the illegal construction made by the Respondent Nos. 6



   Wakodikar                                                                     1/4
            Digitally signed
            by RUPALI
RUPALI      RAJESH
RAJESH      WAKODIKAR
WAKODIKAR   Date: 2026.09.18
            10:44:47 +0530
                                                          5-WP-10622-2022.doc


to 9.



2.      We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.



3.      Ms. Neeta Karnik, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

Petitioner argued that the Respondent - Corporation is protecting the

illegal structures of the Respondent Nos. 6 to 9. The learned Senior

Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, stated that the entire

construction is illegal and that it should be demolished forthwith. It

is pointed out that there is a representation made by the Petitioner to

the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to take action of demolition of the illegal

constructions made by the Respondent Nos 6 to 9. However, the

Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are not discharging their duties and are

sitting tight on the representations of the Petitioner.



4.      When we put a query to the learned Counsel appearing for the

Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 as to why they were not taking any action

against the structures, it was stated by the learned Counsel appearing

for the Corporation that a suit was filed in which protection was

granted to the structure of the Respondent Nos. 6 to 9. The learned


Wakodikar                                                               2/4
                                                          5-WP-10622-2022.doc


Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner at that stage, interjected

and pointed out that the protection is granted only to one structure,

and that other structures are not protected.



5.     In these premises, we feel it fit to direct the Respondent Nos. 1

to 5 to decide the representations of the Petitioner, which are

pending before them. The Respondent - Corporation i.e. Respondent

Nos. 1 to 5 shall take action against the structures where there is no

protection granted by the Civil Court.       In case there is no legal

impediment in taking action against the structure, the Respondent

Nos. 1 to 5, shall forthwith give notices to the occupants of

offending structures, and if it is found that the structures are illegal,

then action be taken to demolish the same by following due process

of law. Needless to state that the affected persons should be granted

an opportunity of hearing. In case of structure where interim relief is

in operation, then the Corporation shall take appropriate steps to

forthwith get the interim relief vacated or for the suit to be

expedited.



6.     It is open for the Petitioner to make an application for his


Wakodikar                                                               3/4
                                                          5-WP-10622-2022.doc


impleadment in the said civil suit. The Trial Court to consider such

applications on its own merits expeditiously.



7.     In case the learned Trial Court vacates the stay and/or in the

event the suit filed by the owner of the concerned offending structure

is dismissed, the Corporation shall forthwith take action for the

purpose of demolition of the structures if the same is found illegal.



8.     With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.



9.      We have not commented anything upon the legality of the said

structures, and the Corporation is free to decide the legality of the

structures and take appropriate action strictly as per law.




(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)                            (M. S. KARNIK, J.)




Wakodikar                                                               4/4