Bombay High Court
SAINAND GOPAL KOTHAVALEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH GOVERNMENT PLEADER
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petitioners, being only tenants, have no locus standi to challenge the layout plan and the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, long‑term tenants of the Worli B.D.D. chawl, sought a declaration that the Revised Layout Plan dated 24 January 2025 was illegal, ultra‑vires and void, and asked that the original Master Layout Plan of 16 March 2021 be reinstated. They alleged that their allotted flats in Rehab Building No. 1 were removed without notice, violating natural justice, and that the new plan favoured outsiders. MHADA contended that the petitioners are eligible for permanent alternate accommodation but have no right to challenge the layout plan, which was sanctioned on 5 April 2022 under the Development Control Regulations. The Court found that the petitioners produced no allotment documents and, as mere tenants, lacked locus standi to contest the plan. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the interim protection was allowed to continue for four weeks.
Issues considered
- The petitioners' locus standi to challenge the Revised Layout Plan
- Whether the Revised Layout Plan dated 24 January 2025 is ultra‑vires and void
- Whether the order of MHADA (respondent No. 2) can be declared null and void
- The maintainability of the writ of certiorari seeking to set aside the layout modification
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority Act (MHADA Act)
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (MRTP Act)
Subjects
- layout plan
- rehabilitation
- locus standi
- natural justice
- MHADA
- redevelopment
- writ of certiorari
- tenants
- ultra vires
Judgment
Digitally
signed by 4-WP-1798-2026.doc
RUPALI
RUPALI RAJESH
RAJESH WAKODIKAR
WAKODIKAR Date:
2026.08.27
19:55:59
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1798 OF 2026
1. Sainand Gopal Kothavale, age--66
2. Anant Laxman Patil, age--78
3. Bhaskar S. Khedekar, age--45
4. Vilas L. Kambli, age--70
5. Bhimrao M. Bhosle, age--75
6. Laxminarayan P. Pendem, age-- 45
7. Sanjay V. Mahadik, age--55
8. Laxmi P. Pendem, age--72
9. Vidya Ashok Dubey, age--70
10. Vaishali S. Dalvi, age--48
11. Vaishali S. Sanil, Age 48
12. Shweta S. Khedekar, age-37
13. Varsha Vidyadhar Shinde, age-- 46
14. Narendra J. Mayekar, age--70
15. Rajshree R. Desai, age--55
16. Priti Madhu Bojja, age-- 51
Wakodikar 1/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
17. Bhanudas P. Kale, age--40
18. Sarita P. Mayekar, age--77
19. Sulochana R. Kadam, age--76
20. Swapnil P. Salvi, age--42
21. Nitin N. Mhatre, age--52
22. Pradip M. Divekar, age--58
23. Sandeep R. Monde, age--60
24. Shobhana S. Kurup, Age--48
25. Viraj Vidyadhar Shinde, age--22
26. Baliram P. Sawant, age--68
27. Swapnil V. Sawant. Age--65
28. Surve S. Varun, age--65
29. Vijay Bahadur Singh, age--86
30. Vijay H. Vadhel, age--49
31. Vandana Lorkar, age--49
32. Krishna R. Jithuri, age--68
33. Vasanti V. Shinde, age--76
34. Vinayak V. Parab, age--70
35. Vinod V. Shinde, age--53
36. Sunil H. Chavan, age--62
Wakodikar 2/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
37. Shubhangi S. Salvi, age--62
38. Savita A. Kharade, age--74
39. Sushila V. Pillai, age--82
40. Supriya P. Bhogale, age--62
41. Jaiprakash D. Dubey, age--72
42. Sunita V. Nayak, age-80
43. Kinnari Sawant, age--52
44. Anant L. Patil, age-63
45. Parag P. Patil, age--53
46. Vithoba L. Dhavde, age--76
47. Hausabai A. Bhosale, age--77
48. Vijaya V. Mohire, age--65
49. Sunil J. Kakde, age--58
50. Nilesh S. Patil, age--36
51. Pushpalata V. Sarange, age—66
52. Sahil S. Nalawade, age--40
53. Nitesh R. Paishetkar, age--40
54. Meghana Nath, age--46
55. Archana A. Bhosale, age--58
Wakodikar 3/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
56. Vijaykumar S. Jaiswal, age-44
57. Alka V. Jadhav, age--45
58. Ashok H. Kamble, age--69
59. Prakash B. Khute, age--59
60. Jitendra L. Kamble, age--55
61. Pandibai Kamble- age --48
62. Vijaylal R. Mishra, age--53
63. Vijeta R. Kesawani, age--58
64. Appasaheb B. Sonawane, age--52
65. Dilip S. Vishwasrao, age--58
66. Chandrakala B. Kamble, age--58
67. Gnanamma S. Reddy, age--58
68. Ranjana S. Sawant, age--40
69. Shakuntala W. Danane, age--48
70. Malan N. Kamble, age-66
71. Sharda M. Bathula, age--59
72. Jamil G. Shikalgar, age--62
73. Baban K. Kamble, age--61
74. Subhash S. Jaiswal, age--66
75. Tarabai S. Battise, age--62
Wakodikar 4/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
76. Anil S. Jadhav, age--44
77. Kamal Kalu Gaikwad, age--69
78. Draupati S. Jamdade, age--45
79. Yogesh G. Bibvekar, age—62
80. Gangayya G. Gajmore, age--46
81. Jaywanti B. Kamble, age--63
82. Laxmi B. Naik, age--61
83. Aruna Vinayak Pisal, age--59
84. Supriya S. Tawade, age--42
85. Raghunath N. Kanade, age--78
86. Prakash S. Sansare, age--80
87. Dattaram K. Landge, age--56
88. Shakuntala D. Jaiswal, age-63
89. Sidhesh P. Durgalwala, age--43
90. Santosh R. Thakaral, age--55
91. Bhujanga S. Shetty, age--68
92. Umakant S. Gite, age--55
93. Nalini J. Mhaskar, age--52
94. Suryakant S. Dhuri, age--49
Wakodikar 5/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
95. Radhabai P. Bade, age--64
96. Nilesh B. Gaikwad, age--61
97. Pooja Vikas Mishra, age-69
98. Jyoti J. Desai, age--46
99. Shantabai A. Deshmukh, age--63
100. Bhanwarlal J. Jain, age--69
101. Dayaram G. Gupta, age--58
102. Ashok D. Dalvi, age--69
103. Pandharinath L. Durgawale, age--43
104. Dipak T. Dighe, age--61
105. Geeta A. Takke, age--54
106. Meena S. Kundar, age--48
107. Chandrakant K. Desai, age-63
108. Pramod A. Ghag, age--57
109. Rajshree H. Chavan, age-- 60
110. Vivekanand S. Shetty, age--48
111. Ramakant M. Baniya, age--56
112. Madhusudan S. Khamkar, age--69
113. Suman G. Shetye, age--55
114. Rajesh S. Bangera, age--71
Wakodikar 6/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
115. Arun Anant Joshi, age--65
116. Sudhakar J. Belwaikar, age--52
117. Shashikala D. Shetty, age--71
118. Sumitra D. Bhopaikar, age-63
119. Ramji B. Jaiswal, age--51
120. Geeta R. Jaiswal, age--49
121. Bharatkumar S. Jaiswal, age-56
122. Dhiraj Ben B. Sodha, age--59
123. Sarla M. Didhiya, age---62
124. Vishakha V. Kanade, age--58
125. Sundar M. Shetty, age--44
126. Nelam D. Tiwari, age--47
127. Amarjeet Singh, age-61
128. Vijay B. Jaiswal, age---62
129. Geeta Rajesh Parte, age--57
130. Sangita A. More, age--65
131. Suman V. Mishra, age--59
132. Dattaram B. Monde, age--68
133. Santosh kumar R. Jaiswal, age--54
Wakodikar 7/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
134. Vilas A. Manjrekar, age---58
135. Vithoba G. Shetti, age-57
136. Prashant P. Ugalmule, age-48
137. Sulochana P. Raut, age-53
138. Suresh D. Jaiswal, age-54
139. Shivkumari Jaiswal, age-61
140. Snehal R. Manjalkar, age-49
141. Sarita D. Chakor, age-53
142. Archana A. Phavde, age-57
143. Chitra C. Kokate, age-56
144. Asha Popat Zende, age-64
145. Fatima Shaikh, age-61
146. Hasan M. Kazi, age-44
147. Rajkumar H. Kesarwani, age-51
148. Sagar G. Bibvekar, age-63
149. Rameshkumar R. Tripathi, age-72
150. Abdul R. Shaikh, age-59
151. Ravi D. Addagatla, age-63
Wakodikar 8/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
152. Pooja Rajkumar Tiwari, age--60
153. Dipesh H. Gala, age-55
154. Hasmukh K. Gala, age--66
155. Vani R. Boddu, age-52
156. Ashok K. Sawant, age-49
157. Anant G. Wankhede, age-42
158. Afzal Sutar Patel, age-54
159. Sunita A. Jaigadkar, age-55
160. Archana D. Khandare, age--59
161. Maqsood M. Shaikh, age--69
162. Alihaidar A. Sarnobat, age-61
163. Nilofar Gulab Shaikh, age-56
164. Najamunnisa A.S. kazi, age 52
165. Ruksana H. Patel, age-59
166. S. Bhuniya, age-62
167. Birendra B. Jaiswal, age--57
168. Sufian H Shah Patel, age-58
169. Rita P. Gala, age 48
Wakodikar 9/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
170. Hassan N. Shaikh, age-59
171. Mohd Shakeel T. Khan, age--61
172. Ashish B. Dharad, age--63
173. Nadim Arif Shaikh, age-48
174. Dastagir H. Shaikh, age--70
175. Gulab N. Ambokar, age 54
176. Shaikh Sabrikhan, age-57
177. Firoja G. patel, age--60
178. Sunil S. Jadhav, age--49
179. Rita Premji Gala, age--63
180. Fakrunnisa D. patel, age-70
181. Imambi D. Patel, age--70
182. Kadri H. G. Hussain, age--66
183. Maryamma V. Maske, age--70
184. Shailesh R. Jaiswal, age--43
185. Niyaz Bano Shaikh, age--42
186. Bhagyavati S. Panjala, age--59
187. Sneha J. Ghadigaokar, age--59
Wakodikar 10/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
188. Satish Arvind Gholap, age--44
189. Mehrajun M. Shaikh, age--53
190. Nasim Bano Patel, age--63
191. Mushtaq Ali H. Karol, age-65
192. Ahmed Jafar Shaikh, age-45
193. Jamaluddin Y. Shaikh, age--68
194. Ratan Kesharwani, age--49
195. Niyazben Ahmed Hussain, age 67
196. Shamunnisa A. Naik, age--58
197. Subhashchandra Yadav, age-65
198. Balkrishna M. Naik, age--45
199. Somnath K. Naik, age--63
200. Shobha Jaiswal, age--62
201. Jahira D. Shaikh, age-63
202. Vijay K. Kajrolkar, age--48
203. Nilofer Shaikh, age-43
204. Rashid M. Masulkar, age 57
205. Noor Shaikh, age--43
Wakodikar 11/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
206. Afsari M. Qureshi, age--70
207. Sajid Ismail Rakhangi, age 57
208. Rajkumar B. Tiwari, age---56
209. Hasmukh Kanji Gala, age---53
210. Bal S. Kamble, age--52
211. Suman V. Mishra, age--66
212. Munir A Makhwar, age--63
213. Prabhakar L. Sunka, age--49
214. Sushila L. Khunte, age--61
215. Laxmi S, Masurekar, age--67
216. Dilip A. Rohekar, age--53
217. Arjun B. Khandagale, age--67
218. Anand G. Kamble, age--64
219. Sanjay V. Chiplunkar, age--58
220. Ratnabai S. Deverkar, age-- 69
221. Chandrakant Waghmare, age--63
222. Shashikala D. Gaikwad, age--46
223. Shridhar N. Waghmare, age--63
Wakodikar 12/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
224. Vilas A. Gaikwad, age-55
225. Vijay S. Gaikwad, age---70
226. Prabhavati Rohekar, age--56
227. Prashant B. Sawarkar, age--55
228. Shakuntala B. Sathe, age--63
229. Shobha N. Adsule, age-- 44
230. Santosh G, Fale, age-65
231. Subhendra J. Bhingare, age 67
232. Hemlata B. Dekhane, age54
233. Khurshid Khan, age--49
234. Shankar B. Naik, age--44
235. Arun H. Balekar, age 65
236. Nandkishor K. Kamble, age--43
237. Purushottam Bhandari, age--57
238. Mallappa S. Nagral, age--61
239. Geeta K. Kajrekar, age--64
240. Anand B. Gaikwad, age--57
241. Kalpana Bhosale, age--69
Wakodikar 13/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
242. Pratibha B. Kamble, age--68
243. Amlesh Gupta, age--58
244. Tej Bahadur Singh, age—56
245. Bhimrao Nivruti Rasal, age --62
246. Ramdular D. Jaiswal, age-57
247. Satyam Narendra Singh, age--66
248. Sharad Prasad S, Sharma, age 58
249. Pradeep P. Mane, age 48
250. Hausabai B. Aher, age--70
251. Kamladevi J. Singh, age--69
252. Santosh L. Gupta, age--45
253. Nitesh Kumar Mishra, age--56
254. Vasanti K. Gupta, age--61
255. Ramdular D. Jaiswal, age---57
256. Satyam Narendra Singh, age--66
257. Sharad prasad S. Sharma, age--58
258. Pradeep P Mane, age-48
259. Hausabai B. Aher, age 70
Wakodikar 14/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
260. Kamladevi J. singh, age---69
261. Santosh L. Gupta, age--45
262. Nitesh kumar Mishra, age 56
263. Vasanti K. Gupta, age--61
264. Ramdular R. Yadav, age--49
265. Sharda S. Gholap, age-44
266. Vishakha Sopan Gaikwad, age--43
267. Suresh Bajarang Rasal, age--49
268. Ashadevi S. Sharma, age--63
269. Bhanudas D Nikam, age--49
270. Namdeo M. More, age--52
271. Lalta Prasad Gupta, age--59
272. Omprakash L. Gupta, age-73
273. Bajrang V. Singh, age -59
274. Ramsurat R. Singh, age --48 )
275. Kiran S. Dontha, age-51
276. Amravati Devi Rajpratap, age-44
277. Dineshchandra L. Pandey, age-48
Wakodikar 15/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
278. Ashokkumar R. Singh, age-57
279. Ramesh P. jawale, age-71
280. Kailash I. Nikalje, age 61
281. Chaya N. Kamble, age-54
282. Shailesh S. Gade, age--46
283. Jethlal K. Jaiswal, age--58
284. Jyoti R. Sargam, age--50
285. Vijay B. Shetty, age--71
286. Dhirendra Baban Singh, age-43
287. Vikas V. Mishra, age--60
288. Sugarabai Shahanz Khan, age-58
289. Hariprasad R. Singh, age---51
290. Chotelal G. Pandey, age--63
291. Manishkumar D. Pandey, age--63
292. Rajendra W. Jawale, age--52
293. Sharadkumar R. Singh, age--65
294. Devdas S. Chandanshive, age--69
295. Sanjog Koregaokar, age --49
Wakodikar 16/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
296. Chandrabhaga Kota. Age--64
297. Vilas Mainkar, age--56
298. Rajendra Singh, age-38
299. Hanmayya L. Janjirala, age-69
300. Santoshkumar Mishra, age-74
301. Suresh Singh, age ---51
302. Rekha D Mishra, age---52
303. Mahindra Gupta,age-49
304. Sanjaykumar Raghuvanshi, age---60 )
305. Pushpa Singh, age --57
306. Suman Kiratkar, age-66
307. Pooranmasi Gupta, age--70
308. Dinesh Goswami, age--63
309. Maya Sasane, age---51
310. Kiran Salvi, age--53
311. Anusaya Khade, age-69
312. Anusaya Sonawane, age--72
313. Namdeo More, age--66
Wakodikar 17/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
314. Manoj Singh, age---58
315. Geetadevi Gupta, age---66
316. Harishchandra Tambe, age-69
317. Shetalaprasad Singh, age--59
318. Baban Kiratkar, age--41
319. Meena More,age--48
320. Laleetkumar & Vinaykumar Yadav,
age 59
321. Ravindra Salvi, age--47
322. Hare Krishna Mane, age--69
323. Parvati Shinde, age--48
324. Sharda Kamble, age-55
325. Savitridevi Shukla, age-42
326. Falendra Kamble, age 59
327. Vineetkumar Singh, age-53
328. Ramsanjeevan pal, age 62
329. Manoj Omprakash Singh, age --49
All Petitioner No. 1 to 329, residing at
Wakodikar 18/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
commonly BDD Chawl Nos. 12, 13,
14, 15, 21 and 29, Ganpat Jadhav Marg,
Jambori Maidan, Worli, Worli,
Mumbai-400018. ...Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, through Govt.
Pleader, High Court (O.S.) Mumbai.
2. Maharashtra Housing Area Development
Authority, having their office at MHADA,
Grihanirman Bhavan, Kalanagar, Bandra
(East), Mumbai – 400 051. ...Respondents
Mr. Nandkumar Bagwe a/w Mr. Chinmay Gupte for the Petitioners.
Ms. Jyoti Mhatre i/b Adv.Komal Punjabi for the Respondent – BMC.
Mr. P.G.Lad a/w Ms. Sayali Apte for the Respondent – MHADA.
Mr. Suraj Gupte, A.G.P for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL JJ.
DATE : 25th AUGUST, 2026
JUDGMENT (PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)
1. By the present petition, the petitioners are seeking a
declaration that the Revised Layout Plan dated 24 th January, 2025 is
illegal, ultra vires and void ab initio. A direction is also sought to
Wakodikar 19/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
reinstate and enforce the original Master Layout Plan dated 16 th
March, 2021. A writ of Certiorari is sought for setting aside any
modification in the Master Layout Plan dated 16 th March, 2021. The
further prayer is sought that the order of the respondent No.2 be
declared as null and void ab initio. Although the petitioners have
sought the prayer to declare the order of the respondent No.2 as null
and void and sought quashing of the same, however, in the entire
petition the details including date of the order is not mentioned.
2. The petitioners’ case is that they are long-term tenants of
the Worli B.D.D. chawl. It is their case that on 16 th March, 2021,
MHADA finalized and approved the Master Development Plan for the
B.D.D.chawl development and that the petitioners were allotted flats
in the Rehab Building No.1, admeasuring about 500 sq.ft. each. It is
the case of the petitioner that a new plan dated 24 th January, 2025
was drawn and the petitioners have been wiped of from the plan.
The Revised Layout treats Rehab Building No.1 as if no prior
Wakodikar 20/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
allocation ever existed. It is the contention of the petitioners that the
unilateral removal of the petitioners’ allotment in Worli B.D.D.chawl
and diversion of those rehab flats to the persons who were not
originally eligible was taken without giving them notice of hearing,
in violation of principle of natural justice. There was no public
notice or Government sanction given for the Revised Layout Plan and
it was a favoritism to a selected groups at the expense of lawful
tenants. The petitioners contended that allotments were conducted
through a lottery on 14th October, 2024 distributing hundreds of flats
to persons outside the eligible tenant list. It is the contention of the
petitioners that the petitioners are left without any homes and have
therefore, filed the present petition.
3. The respondent – MHADA in response have filed an
affidavit. They have stated that the petitioners have no right to ask
for a writ of Mandamus. The MHADA in its affidavit had stated that
the petitioners are tenants of the respondent No.2 in respect of their
respective tenaments in building Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 21 and 29. The
Wakodikar 21/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
respondent No.1 has formed scheme for cluster re-development of
B.D.D.chawl and after getting necessary approval, the respondent
No.2 incorporated Regulations 33(9)(B) in DCPR for redevelopment
of B.D.D.chawl. The only right of the petitioners is that they are
beneficiary of the Scheme and are entitled for permanent alternate
accommodation admeasuring at about 46.45 sq.mtrs. equivalent to
500 sq.ft. The MHADA has stated on affidavit that the petitioners are
eligible occupants and are entitled for permanent alternate
accommodation. However, they do not have right to challenge the
Layout and/or the plan or insist for rehabilitation in a particular
building. The MHADA has in their affidavit stated that the plan for
redevelopment of B.D.D.chawl Worli was approved on 5th April, 2022
and was prepared taking into consideration the provisions of
Development Control Regulations. It is stated that there were many
other plans which were prepared to ascertain number of buildings
and tenaments to be accommodated in the building. The said plans
were however, tentative and ultimately, the present sanctioned plan
dated 5th April, 2022 was approved. The MHADA, therefore,
Wakodikar 22/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
4. Perused the pleadings. Heard the learned Counsel for the
parties.
5. The basic grievance of the petitioners appears to be that
they were allotted tenaments in a particular building, however, now
the layout is changed and that in the changed layout, their building
does not find place. There is nothing on record to indicate that the
petitioners were allotted a particular tenament in a particular
building. The petitioners have not produced on record any allotment
letter or agreement entered between the MHADA and the petitioners.
Thus, the very basis of the claim of the petitioners is without any
substance.
6. The re-development of the B.D.D.chawl has commenced.
Layout is Sanctioned on 5th April, 2022 and the scheme for cluster
redevelopment of B.D.C.chawl is in progress. Some buildings are
demolished and new buildings are constructed. The MHADA has
Wakodikar 23/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
specifically stated on oath that the petitioners are eligible for
permanent alternate accommodation in the B.D.D.Chawl itself and
that they will be allotted the permanent alternate accommodation.
Thus, the sum and substance of the contentions of the MHADA is
that the petitioners are entitled to be allotted a permanent alternate
accommodation, however, they cannot challenge the Layout Plan.
7. The petitioners are harping upon some Layout Plan which
was allegedly sanctioned on 16th March, 2021. However, it is the
MHADA’s contention that there were many alternate plans which
were drawn and ultimately the present Layout Plan dated 5 th April,
2022 was finalized. The MHADA has specifically stated in its
affidavit at page No.11 that the petitioners are occupants of building
Nos.12, 13, 14, 15, 21 and 29 and that permanent accommodation to
the petitioners are proposed in the rehab building No.2 and lottery is
already conducted. The assurance given by the MHADA that the
petitioners will be accommodated in rehab building No.2 and that
the lottery is already conducted is sufficient to assure the petitioners
Wakodikar 24/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
that they will be given the permanent alternate accommodations.
8. As far as the challenge to the Layout is concerned, the
petitioners who are just tenants have no locus to challenge the
Layout. It is not the case of the petitioners that the Layout is
contrary to the provisions to the MRTP Act. It is also not the
contention of the petitioners that the Layout is contrary to the
prevailing rules under the MHADA Act or the MRTP Act. This being
the position, there is no merit in the contentions of the petitioners.
The petitioners are entitled to permanent alternate accommodation.
The affidavit of MHADA specifically assures that the permanent
alternate accommodation will be provided to the petitioners.
9. In light of this, there is no merit in this petition. Hence,
the following order :
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition No. 1798 of 2026 is dismissed.
Wakodikar 25/26
4-WP-1798-2026.doc
(ii) In view of dismissal of the petition, Contempt
Petition (L) No. 18944 of 2026 is also disposed of.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
10. After the Judgment was pronounced, learned Counsel for
the petitioner seeks continuation of the interim protection already
operating.
11. The request is opposed by the learned Counsel for
MHADA.
12. In the interest of justice, the interim arrangement which is
already in operation, to continue for a period of four weeks from
today.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Wakodikar 26/26
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.