Bombay High Court
VINAYAK DATTATRAY BELAMKARversusTHE LEARNED MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the petitioner’s representation within three months.
Summary
The petitioner, Vinayak Dattatray Belamkar, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus directing the Pune Municipal Commissioner and the City Engineer to decide his representation dated 15 May 2025 concerning an illegal encroachment on his land. He alleged that despite a representation and a reminder, the municipal authorities had taken no action. The Court noted that no notice to the respondents was required given the nature of the order sought. Without addressing the merits, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to decide the representation within three months of the certified copy of the order. The petition was thus dismissed with a directive for expeditious consideration.
Issues considered
- What relief, if any, can be granted under Article 226 for a failure of municipal authorities to decide a representation?
- Is a notice required before passing a mandamus in such circumstances?
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- Article 226
- municipal corporation
- illegal encroachment
- representation
Judgment
Digitally signed
by MAYUR
MAYUR KONDIRAM
ADANE
KONDIRAM Date:
ADANE 2026.10.09
13:27:14
+0530
32-WP-17291-2025 (C).doc
Mayur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 17291 OF 2025
Vinayak Dattatray Belamkar ...Petitioner
Versus
The Learned Municipal Commissioner Pune
Municipal Corporation And Anr ...Respondents
...
Adv. Yatin Malvankar, for the Petitioner.
...
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 8th OCTOBER, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.
2. Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, no
Notice is required to be issued to the Respondents.
3. The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for the following substantive relief :-
“That this honourable Court be pleased to issue writ
mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ direction and order thereby
directing the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to decide the
representation made by the Petitioner dated
15.05.2025 and the reminder to that effect dated
23.09.2025 and thereafter, proceed against the
illegal encroachment done by the adjacent plot
owner on the plot of land owned and possessed by
the Petitioner.”
1/2
32-WP-17291-2025 (C).doc
4. The Petitioner asserts his grievance by way of a
Representation dated 15th May 2025 submitted to Respondent No.
2- City Engineer, Pune Municipal Corporation, followed by a
reminder dated 23rd September 2025 addressed to Respondent Nos.
1 and 2. However, till date, the Respondents have not taken any
decision thereon, constraining the Petitioner to approach this Court
seeking a direction to the Respondents to decide the said
Representation/s.
5. Having regard to the relief/s prayed for in the Petition, no
purpose would be served in keeping this Writ Petition pending for
consideration.
6. Accordingly, without entering into or adverting to the merits of
the case, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with a direction to the
Respondents/Competent Authority to consider and decide the
Petitioner's Representation dated 15th May 2025 in accordance with
law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from
the date of production of a certified copy of this order by the
Petitioner.
7. With the above observations/directions, the Writ Petition is
Disposed Of.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.