MISHAL MARIO DE SOUZAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH, HOME DEPARTMENT

                                                                                           29-WP.1911.2026.doc

      Salunke
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

JAYANT
VISHWANATH                               WRIT PETITION NO. 1911 OF 2026
SALUNKE
Digitally signed by
JAYANT VISHWANATH
SALUNKE
Date: 2026.10.06
11:13:26 +0530
                      Mishal Mario De Souza                            }      Petitioner
                            Versus
                      State of Maharashtra & Ors.                      }      Respondents


                      Mr. Satish Mishra with               Ms.       Simran   Shirvoikar,
                      Advocates for the Petitioner.

                      Mr. Suraj Gupte, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4-State.


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

                                    DATE        : 5th OCTOBER, 2026

                      P.C.:
                      1.      By the instant Writ Petition, the Petitioner, inter alia, seeks

                      the following substantive reliefs:-

                              “a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or
                              Direction declaring the action of the Respondent Police Authorities in
                              sealing the premises bearing G/2, Rocha Compound, D.N. Singh Road,
                              Hathibaug, Mazgaon, Mumbai-400010 and dispossessing the
                              Petitioner therefrom as illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law;
                              b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or
                              Direction directing the Respondents to forthwith restore peaceful and
                              lawful possession of the aforesaid premises to the Petitioner;
                              c. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or
                              Direction directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to appoint a fit, independent
                              and impartial agency or authority to conduct inquiry into the conduct
                              of Respondent No. 4 Police Inspector Suresh Chavan, attached to
                              Byculla Police Station, for abuse and misuse of police powers;
                              d. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or
                              Direction directing that investigation in FIR No. 841/2025 registered
                              with Byculla Police Station be transferred to an independent and
                              impartial Investigating Officer or any other appropriate agency;


                              e. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or
                              Direction directing the Respondents to secure, preserve and produce
                                                                 1
                                                                   29-WP.1911.2026.doc


       CCTV footage of the said premises and surrounding area, including
       footage recorded at the time of sealing and reopening of the premises
       and to ensure that such electronic evidence is not tampered with or
       destroyed;
       f. Issue appropriate directions awarding compensation to the Petitioner
       for illegal dispossession, loss of professional practice, business loss
       and mental harassment caused due to the unlawful acts of the
       Respondent;
       g. That this Hon'ble court be pleased Direct Respondents to secure and
       preserve CCTV footage relating to the incident.”

2.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Having

heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and considering the

reliefs sought through the instant Writ Petition, we are of the

considered opinion that the dispute between the parties inter-se

appears to be purely Civil in nature. These are factual disputes

between the Landlord and the Tenant, which cannot be gone into a

writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Moreover, the Petition lacks the necessary particulars.


3.     Confronted with the aforesaid situation, the learned Counsel

for the Petitioner, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the Writ

Petition with liberty to the Petitioner to institute appropriate

proceedings      before    the    competent      Civil/Criminal       Court       in

accordance with law.


4.     In view of the aforesaid submission, the Writ Petition is

dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.




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


                                        2