SUN ROCK MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE CHSversusTHE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER MCGM AND 8 ORS.

                                                       34. WP 2505-2023.doc

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

                       WRIT PETITION NO.2505 OF 2023

Sun Rock Municipal Employees
Co-operative Society Ltd.                 …     Petitioners
         Versus
The Municipal Commissioner &
Others                                    …     Respondents
                                   …..
Mr. Kirti Munshi, Senior Counsel a/w Ms. Priyam Amin and Ms. Aditi
Karanjkar i/b N.N. Amin & Co. for the Petitioners.
Mr. Ramdas Hake-Patil a/w Mr. Bibhishan Sutar i/b Smt. Komal
Punjabi for Respondent Nos.1 to 4-MCGM.
Adv. Nishigandh Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent-State.
Mr. Sanjiv Sawant a/w Mr. Abhishek Deshmukh and Ms. Bhakti Wast
for Respondent Nos.6 and 7.
                                   …..

                                CORAM: M.S. KARNIK &
                                       SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

                                DATED : 6th OCTOBER 2026
P.C.

1.        Heard Mr. Kirti Munshi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the Petitioners, Mr. Ramdas Hake-Patil, the learned Counsel for

Respondent Nos.1 to 4-MCGM and Mr. Sanjiv Sawant, the learned

Counsel for Respondent Nos.6 and 7.


2.        The Petitioners are seeking the relief for directing the

RaJesh Chittewan, PS                                                     1/3
                                                             34. WP 2505-2023.doc

Respondent             Nos.1   to   4-MCGM   to   take   action   against    the

unauthorized construction, which is the subject matter of the

Petition.


3.        Mr. Sanjiv Sawant, the learned Counsel submits that a Civil

Suit has been filed before the City Civil Court at Dindoshi, Mumbai,

by Respondent Nos.6 and 7.               The interim protection has been

granted in the pending suit.


4.        Mr. Munshi, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the

Petitioners have filed an application for intervention in the pending

suit.         However, he proposed to withdraw the intervention

application, as the same may not be maintainable.


5.        In any case, once the notice has been issued by the MCGM

under Section 53(1) of the M.R.T.P. Act, the same will obviously have

to be taken to its logical conclusion. If there are the subsequent

developments, the MCGM is bound to take the same into

consideration.


6.        This Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the MCGM to take

the notice under Section 53(1) of the M.R.T.P. Act to its                logical


RaJesh Chittewan, PS                                                           2/3
                                                         34. WP 2505-2023.doc

conclusion, subject to any legal impediment.


7.        It is open for the Petitioners to request for inspection of the

files to the concerned Officials of the MCGM, dealing with the subject

notice. If such an application is made, the same to be considered in

accordance with the existing rules, within a period of four weeks

from the date of the Application.


8         The Writ Petition stands disposed of.




(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)                            (M.S. KARNIK, J.)




RaJesh Chittewan, PS                                                       3/3
                   Digitally signed by
RAJESH             RAJESH VASANT
VASANT             CHITTEWAN
CHITTEWAN          Date: 2026.10.09
                   11:11:18 +0530