BHOOMI SHASHWAT ESTATE PVT LTDversusTHE BRIHANMUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

                                                                                               16-WP.3265.2026.doc

      Salunke
           Digitally
           signed by
           JAYANT
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
JAYANT     VISHWANATH
VISHWANATH SALUNKE
SALUNKE    Date:
           2026.09.11
                                     ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
           11:05:14
           +0530




                                            WRIT PETITION NO. 3265 OF 2026

                        Bhoomi Shaswat Estate Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. }                        Petitioners
                             Versus
                        The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation }
                        & Ors.                                 }                        Respondents


                        Mr. Nishant Chothani with Mr. Vikas Maniar, Ms.Sneha
                        Patil, Ms. Aditi Sinha i/b. Maniar Srivastava Associates,
                        for the Petitioner.

                        Ms. Shweta Patankar, Advocate for Respondents-BMC.


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

                                       DATE        : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026

                        P.C.:
                        1.      We have heard Mr. Nishant Chothani, the learned counsel for
                        the Petitioner and Ms. Shweta Patankar, the learned counsel for
                        Respondents-BMC.

                        2.      The instant Writ Petition is preferred under Article 226 of the
                        Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs: -

                                “a)    That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari
                                or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order
                                and direction quashing and setting aside the Special Notice dated 12 th
                                August 2024 (Exhibit ‘H’ hereto);
                                b)      that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or
                                a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order
                                and direction calling for the records, papers and proceedings
                                culminating into the issuance of the Impugned Warrant dated 2 nd
                                March 2026 (Exhibit ‘M’ hereto) and after examining the legality,
                                validity and propriety thereof, be pleased to quash and set aside the
                                actions of the Respondents culminating into the issuance of the
                                Impugned Warrant dated 2nd March 2026 (Exhibit ‘M’ hereto);

                                                                   1
                                                                 16-WP.3265.2026.doc


      c)      that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus
      or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
      order or direction directing the Respondents to re-assess and re-
      calculate the property tax on the said Building by considering the
      Petitioners’ representations and complaints dated 6 th September 2024,
      8th November 2024, 21st January 2025, 11th March 2025 and 26th
      March 2026 in accordance with law.”

3.    The learned counsel for the Respondents-BMC raised a
preliminary objection to the maintainability of this Writ Petition and
submitted that under section 217 of the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as “the MMC Act”),
there has been a remedy of Appeal available to the Petitioners
against the impugned orders/notices. She submits that since the
Petitioner is already having the efficacious remedy under the MMC
Act, there is no reason to bypass the said statutory remedy.

4.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as
emerged before us, we find that the substantial interest of justice
would be subserved if the Petitioner prefers an Appeal along with
the stay application within 10 days from today. If such an
Appeal/Application       is   preferred,     we    expect     the    Appellate
Authority/Court to deal with the Interim Application or the Appeal
itself, expeditiously, without granting unnecessary adjournments to
the parties.

5.    With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

6.    It is made clear that we have not adverted to the merits of the
matter and all contentions of the parties are kept open.



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




                                       2