Bombay High Court

FANCY NATVARLAL BORAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SECRETARY AND ORS

Decided: 16 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court ordered that the representation filed on 4 May 2026 be decided within eight weeks and maintained the status‑quo, without deciding the merits of the petitioners' objections.

Summary

The petitioners challenged notices issued under Sections 260(1)(2) and 267(1)(2)(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, alleging that the second floor of their building was illegal and that they had already filed a detailed objection on 4 May 2026. The Court referred to an earlier order (22 January 2025) in Sylvina Marian Carvalho v. Thane Municipal Corporation where the illegal second floor had been demolished, while the ground and first floors were held lawful. The petitioners sought a restraining order to prevent any coercive action by the municipal authority until their representation was decided. The Court did not adjudicate the merits but directed that the representation filed on 4 May 2026 be decided expeditiously, within eight weeks, and ordered a status‑quo pending that decision, restraining further development or alienation of the disputed property. The writ petitions were consequently disposed with these directions.

Issues considered

Whether the notices issued under Sections 260(1)(2) and 267(1)(2)(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act are legally sustainable.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a stay of any coercive action pending the decision of their representation dated 4 May 2026.
Whether the Court can direct the municipal authority to decide the representation within a specified time frame.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 — s. 260(1)(2), 267(1)(2)(3)

Subjects

Writ petition
Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act
Illegal construction
Stay order
Representation
Status quo
Municipal authority

Judgment

(37 to 39)-WP-12101-26 & Ors..doc

PANCHAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
signed by
BALAJI
BALAJI GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL Date:
2026.09.17
18:09:33
+0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 12101 OF 2026

Sachin Kaluram Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12102 OF 2026

Fancy Natvarlal Bora ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12105 OF 2026

Vipul Kaluram Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

...
Mr. Ashish S. Gaikwad a/w Mr. Anirudh R. Rote, Mr. Sagar G.
Bhoir, Mr. Ashish S. Jadhav & Ms. Savita Gaikwad, for the
Petitioner in all the Petitions.
Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, GP a/w Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP &
Mrs. Pooja Patil, AGP for the Respondent No.1/State in
WP/12101/2026.
Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, GP a/w Mr. Aditya Deolekar, AGP for the
Respondent No.1 in WP/12102/2026.
Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, GP a/w Mrs. P. J. Gavhane, AGP for the
Respondent No.1 in WP/12105/2026.
...

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

DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

1
(37 to 39)-WP-12101-26 & Ors..doc

P.C.:
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2. In view of the order that we proposed to pass, no
notice is required to be issued to the Respondents.

3. At the outset, Mr. Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner submits that in view of the notices dated 02.09.2026
and 05.03.2026 issued under Section 260(1) (2) and 267(1) (2)
and (3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949,
the Petitioner has already filed detailed objection
/representation on 04.05.2026.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed
reliance on the order dated 22nd January, 2025 passed by the
Co-ordinate Bench in Civil Writ Petition No. 76 of 2024 in
between Mrs. Sylvina Marian Carvalho Vs. Thane Municipal
Corporation & Ors. The said proceeding was instituted by the
complainant, wherein in response to the order dated 18 th June,
2024, which was passed by this Court, necessary action on the
suit structure i.e. second floor of the building erected by the
Respondent Nos.7 and 8 (now the Petitioner) was initiated.

5. Since it was found that the second floor constructed
by the said persons was totally illegal, it was demolished on
12th July, 2024. He relied upon the order dated 22 nd January,

2
(37 to 39)-WP-12101-26 & Ors..doc

2025, which reads thus :-

“1) Mr. Bubna, learned Advocate appearing for
Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, on instructions from Mr.
Bhalchandra Ghuge, Assistant Commissioner of
TMC, submitted that, in furtherance of Order dated
18th June 2024 passed by this Court, necessary
action on the suit structure i.e. second floor of the
building erected by the Respondent Nos. 7 & 8 has
been taken. Since it was found that, the second
floor constructed by the said persons was
thoroughly illegal, it was demolished on 12 th July
2024. He further submitted that, the ground + first
floor structure of the suit building i.e. Gomtibai
Niwas is legally constructed and therefore no action
is taken against it. That, Mr. Bhalchandra Ghuge,
Assistant Municipal Commissioner has filed an
Affidavit dated 5th August 2024 on record to that
effect.

2) In view thereof, the grievance of the Petitioner
as of today does not survive. Order dated 18 th June
2024 is complied with.

3) Remove from board.”

6. In the light of the aforesaid order, Mr. Gaikwad
would submit that as the statement of fact that no action be
taken in respect of the ground and first floors as recorded in
the said order, as such, it is claimed the first floor is in order.
The objection was qua the second floor. He submits that the
Impugned Notice is not sustainable and the said objection is
already taken while filing an objection/representation dated
04.05.2026. He would confine the relief to the objection dated
04.05.2026 to be decided in accordance with law. Mr. Gaikwad

3
(37 to 39)-WP-12101-26 & Ors..doc

submits that until disposal of such objection, the Respondent
be restrained from taking any coercive action against the
Petitioner.

7. Be as it may be. Considering the overall facts and
circumstances, the instant Petition is Disposed Of by
providing/observing that the representation dated 04.05.2026
be decided expeditiously by the Respondent Corporation
preferably within eight weeks from the date of production of
this order, before the said Respondent/Authority.

8. Until disposal of the representation, parties shall
maintain status-quo as on today. We further restrain the
Petitioner to carry out any further development at the disputed
site/second floor. We further restrain the Petitioner from
alienating or creating any third party rights/interest qua the
subject property.

9. With the aforesaid direction, Writ Petitions are
Disposed Of, by clarifying that we have not adverted on the
merits of the matter.

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…