EDGAR GAIKWADversusMUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER

                                                                                14-WP-333-2026 (OS).odt

     Pallavi

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
           Digitally
           signed by
                                     ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
           PALLAVI
PALLAVI    MAHENDRA
MAHENDRA   WARGAONKAR
WARGAONKAR Date:
           2026.10.01
           11:56:30
           +0530                           WRIT PETITION NO. 333 OF 2026

                        Edgar Gaikwad                                  ...Petitioner
                             Versus
                        Mumbai Municipal Corporation
                        Through Its Commissioner                       ...Respondent
                                                            ...
                        Mr. Bhavesh Parmar a/w Rajesh Sahani and Pritham Konvare i/b.
                        Devmanni Shukla i/b Daevmani Shukla for the Petitioner.

                        Ms. Sheetal Metakari i/b. Komal Punjabi for the Respondent Nos.1
                        and 2 - BMC.
                                                            ...
                                           CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
                                                   ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.

                                           DATE     : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026.


                        P.C.:
                        1.      We have heard Mr. Bhavesh Parmar, learned counsel for the

                        Petitioner.

                        2.      Ms. Sheetal Metakari, learned counsel appears for the

                        Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation.

                        3.      The instant Writ Petition is filed inter-alia, seeking the

                        following substantive reliefs:-

                                “(b) For a writ or an order in the nature of a writ of this
                                    Hon'ble Court directing the Commissioner of BMC either
                                    himself or through some senior official of BMC nominated
                                    and appointed by him to immediately and forthwith
                                    decide the Petitioner's representation dated 9.7.2025


                                                             1
                                                       14-WP-333-2026 (OS).odt


        (Exhibit A) within a fixed time frame after giving a
        personal hearing to the Petitioner;
     (c) For a writ or an order in the nature of a writ of this
         Hon'ble Court directing the Commissioner of BMC to
         initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the
         Respondent No.2 for issuing under his name and
         signature the letter dated 9.9.2025 (Exhibit C) and
         thereby not perform his duty cast upon him under the
         law while dealing with the Petitioner's representation
         dated 9.7.2025 (Exhibit A).”

4.   We are not inclined to issue a formal notice to the

Respondents, as the Petitioner has confined the relief to the extent

that his Representation dated 9th July 2025 (Exh.-A) be decided in

accordance with law.

5.   Mr. Bhavesh Parmar, learned counsel for the Petitioner

submits that the Petitioner had made a detailed Representation

dated 9th July 2025 addressed to the Commissioner, BMC, Mumbai

along with three other senior officials of the Respondent No. 1 –

Corporation. Such Representation was made in light of the liberty

granted in terms of the order dated 7 th May 2025 passed by a Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5401 of 2024

(Exh.-B).

6.   Mr.    Parmar   contends   that   in   response   to    Petitioner’s

Representation dated 9th July 2025, the Respondent No. 2 -

Assistant Engineer, (Building Proposal) H/West, in an arbitrary

manner, issued a communication dated 9th September 2025 (Exh.-



                                 2
                                                           14-WP-333-2026 (OS).odt


C). However, according to Ms. Parmar, no decision is taken on the

Petitioner’s representation by the Respondents, and the same is

therefore, not disposed of in terms of the order of this Court dated

7th May 2025 (supra).

7.    Considering the facts and circumstances as emerged before

us, we clarify that if such Representation is moved before the

Respondent        –   Corporation,   we   caution    the   Respondent           –

Corporation that the same be examined and decided in accordance

with law and not with the sole object of denying the rightful claim

of the parties.

8.    Accordingly, we direct that the Petitioner’s Representation

dated 9th July 2025 be decided by a                 Senior Officer of the

Respondent No. 1 – Corporation, not below the rank of Assistant

Commissioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of three

months from the date of uploading of this order. We expect that

Respondent – Corporation will accord sufficient opportunity of

hearing to the Petitioner, while disposing such Representation, in

accordance with law.

9.    In light of the above directions, the Writ Petition is Disposed

Of.


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



                                     3