Bombay High Court

SATISH BHUJANGA SHETTY AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU. G. P. AND ORS

Decided: 28 January 2026
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: G S KULKARNI AARTI A SATHE

Holding

A writ under Article 226 cannot be issued against a private party for the relief claimed, and a second petition for the same relief is non‑maintainable.

Summary

The petitioners, Satish Bhujanga Shetty and others, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing Respondent No.4, a private landlord, to remove a lock and allow repair work on a building terrace, along with various ancillary orders. The same reliefs had previously been sought in Writ Petition No.7394 of 2025, which the Court had dismissed, directing the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) to take action. The Court observed that the petitioners had suppressed material facts, notably an eviction decree from the Small Causes Court and an undertaking not to obstruct execution, thereby losing rights over the tenements. It further held that a writ under Article 226 cannot be issued against a private party for the relief claimed. Consequently, the petition was deemed non‑maintainable and dismissed with a cost order of Rs.10,000 payable to the Maharashtra Legal Service Authority. The decision underscores the principle that duplicate petitions and suppression of material facts vitiate the maintainability of a writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition seeking mandamus against a private landlord for removal of a lock and facilitation of repair work is maintainable under Article 226.
Whether the petition is barred as a second petition for the same relief already sought in Writ Petition No.7394 of 2025.
Whether the suppression of material facts, including an eviction decree and an undertaking, affects the petition's maintainability.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966

Subjects

Article 226
Writ of mandamus
private party
duplicate petition
suppression of material facts
cost order
MHADA
eviction decree
landlord-tenant

Judgment

Digitally
signed by
KAWRE
KAWRE KIRAN 24-WP-13205-2025 (C).DOC
KIRAN KALYAN
KALYAN Date:
2026.02.02
11:28:23
+0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 13205 OF 2025

Satish Bhujanga Shetty And Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of Maharashtra Thru. G. P. And Ors. ...Respondents
_________
Mr. Ajay Dube a/w Yogita Kanojiya for Petitioner.
Ms. V. R. Raje, AGP for State.
Mr. Nirman Sharma, a/w Mr. Deeshank Doshi & Ms. Uma Sharma i/b Dharam &
Co., for Respondent No.4.
__________

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.

DATE: 28 JANUARY 2026

P.C.

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This petition is thoroughly misconceived, apart from the fact that the

petitioner has suppressed material facts.

3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed

praying for the following reliefs:

"a. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order and direction, directing Respondent No. 4 to immediately
remove the lock from Room no-21, 5th floor, and provide unrestricted access to
the terrace of Plot no. 94, Jamset Building Keshavrao Khadev Marg, Near New
Shirin Talkies Satrasta, Mumbai-400011, to enable the Petitioners and/or
MHADA to carry out the urgent repair work.

b. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent No. 4 to fully cooperate
with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (MHADA) and the Petitioners in carrying out the
repair work of the said building and to remove all obstructions and impediments
that prevent the execution of such repairs.

c. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (MHADA)
to immediately take concrete action in pursuance of this Hon'ble Court's earlier
order dated 13/06/2025 in Writ Petition No. 7394 of 2025 and to undertake the

Page 1 of 3
28 January 2026
Kiran Kawre
24-WP-13205-2025 (C).DOC

repairs as permissible in law without further delay.

d. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue directions for the immediate structural
assessment of the building by a competent engineer and to take all necessary
emergency measures to ensure the safety of the residents.

e. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to initiate contempt proceedings against
Respondent No. 4 for willful disobedience of the court order dated 13/06/2025
in Writ Petition No. 7394 of 2025.

f. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 4 to pay
compensation to the Petitioners for the damage caused to their household items,
electrical appliances, and for the mental agony and harassment suffered due to his
negligent conduct.

g. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to appoint a Court Commissioner to oversee
the repair work and ensure compliance with the court directions.

h. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct that the repair work be completed
within a specified time frame before the peak monsoon season to prevent further
deterioration and risk to life and property.

i. Pass any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper
in the interest of justice."

4. We find that for similar reliefs, the petitioner had earlier approached this

Court by filing Writ Petition No.7394 of 2025, which came to be disposed of by

an order dated 13 June 2025 which reads thus:

"1. Considering the prayers as made in the petition, it may not be possible for
this Court to issue a writ against respondent no.4. It appears from the record that
the petitioner has already approached MHADA. Also the MHADA has issued a
notice dated 05 May 2025 to respondent no.4/landlord in regard to repair work
of the terrace to be undertaken. MHADA needs to take further appropriate
action as permissible in law and undertake the repairs.

2. Keeping open all contentions of the parties, we dispose of this petition in the
aforesaid terms. No costs."

5. Thus, the aforesaid order passed by this Court is very clear that it was

ultimately for the MHADA to take appropriate steps. Therefore, a second petition

for the same reliefs could not have been filed and cannot be held to be

maintainable. Apart from this, the suppression which we have noted pertains to an

eviction decree passed by the Small Causes Court at Bombay, which the petitioner

Page 2 of 3
28 January 2026
Kiran Kawre
24-WP-13205-2025 (C).DOC

is suffering which has not been disclosed in this petition. We also find that the

petitioner has also furnished an undertaking before the Appellate Court that he

would not obstruct execution of the decree meaning thereby that he has lost all

rights in respect of the said tenements in question. These material facts have been

suppressed in the memo of the petition.

6. This apart also a Writ of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

cannot be issued against a private party/respondent No.4.

7. Thus, looked from any angle, the petition is not maintainable. It is

accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner

with the Maharashtra Legal Service Authority within a period of ten days from

today. Payment of cost is condition precedent, failing which the Member

Secretary is at liberty to initiate recovery proceedings by initiating proceedings

through the Collector under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue

Code, 1966.

(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

Page 3 of 3
28 January 2026
Kiran Kawre

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…