Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

AVINYA HOSPITALITY SERVICES LLP THR ITS DIRECTORversusPANVEL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

The Panvel Municipal Corporation granted the petitioner, Avinya Hospitality Services LLP, permission on 2 June 2025 to erect cantilevered foldable awnings as a temporary rainy-season structure, with a condition that the structure be removed after 15 October 2025 and the premises restored. The petitioner alleged that the corporation illegally removed the awnings and that its officers demanded illegal gratification, also seeking Rs.80 lakhs compensation for alleged high‑handed action. The court found no evidence to substantiate the claim of illegal gratification and held that any remedy for such an allegation lay elsewhere. It further noted the absence of proof of loss, rendering the compensation claim untenable. Since the structure had already been demolished and the conditions of the permission were clear, the court dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

  • Whether the removal of the temporary awnings by the municipal corporation violated the terms of the permission granted.
  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for alleged high‑handed action by the corporation.
  • Whether allegations of illegal gratification by municipal officers merit relief under writ jurisdiction.

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • municipal corporation
  • temporary structure
  • removal
  • compensation
  • illegal gratification
  • high court

Judgment

SMITA       Digitally signed by
            SMITA JOHNSON
JOHNSON     GONSALVES
            Date: 2026.09.22
GONSALVES   17:36:17 +0530




                      sg                                                                                        7.wp(c)11914-26.docx


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                           WRIT PETITION NO. 11914 OF 2026

               Avinya Hospitality Services LLP Thr. Its Director                                               … Petitioner

                                  versus
               Panvel Municipal Corporation And Ors.          … Respondents
                                              ----
               Mr. Rahul Mishra, a/w. Ms. Rashmi S. Vishwakarma and Ms. Kajal
               Nishad, for the Petitioner.

               None for the Respondents.
                                                                           ----
                                                                           CORAM:BHARATI DANGRE &
                                                                                                       ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
                                                                           DATE: 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026
               P.C.:
               1.                 On 2.6.2025, the Panvel Municipal Corporation granted

               permission to the Petitioner to construct Cantilevered Foldable

               Awnings                 or any other temporary structure limited for extending

               protection during rainy season.

                                  The permission clearly stipulated that after 15 th October, 2025,

               no extension shall be granted and whatever structure in form of the

               rainy shade is erected, would be required to be removed and the

               premises to be restored to its original position. The said permission is

               annexed at Exhibit “C” of the petition.

                                                                    Page 1 of 3
                                                       __________________________________________________

                                                         21st September, 2026
     sg                                                                            7.wp(c)11914-26.docx


2.        The learned Counsel for the Petitioner made a grievance about

the same having been illegally removed and there are also several

allegations made about the illegal gratification being demanded by the

officers of the Corporation merely by annexing photographs alleging

to be the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification by particular

Officer. We are not convinced to accept that the illegal gratification is

offered or even accepted. For this purpose, definitely the Petitioner's

remedy lies somewhere else. As far as the another prayer of claim of

compensation is concerned, the alleged high-handed action by the

Respondents, this definitely requires sufficient proof to establish that a

loss has been caused to the Petitioner, and in its absence, in exercise of

the writ jurisdiction, definitely we cannot entertain such a claim of

compensation of Rs.80 lakhs.



3.        As far as this particular prayer is concerned, we are informed

that the structure has already been demolished and if the Petitioner

faces any difficulty in the years to come, the doors of this Court are

open to him but that should be subject to examination of the

permission that has been granted and the condition subject to which it

is granted.

                                           Page 2 of 3
                              __________________________________________________

                                21st September, 2026
sg                                                                                 7.wp(c)11914-26.docx


     For the reasons recorded, we dismiss the writ petition.



(ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.)                                                     (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)




                                       Page 3 of 3
                          __________________________________________________

                            21st September, 2026


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.