RAJU DANIELversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI

ANANT
KRISHNA                                                                                        42.WP.3388.2025.doc
NAIK
Digitally signed by
ANANT KRISHNA
NAIK
Date: 2026.09.24
11:04:13 +0530

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

                                                WRIT PETITION NO. 3388 OF 2025

                      Raju Daniel                                               … Petitioner
                            Versus
                      Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.            … Respondents

                      Mr. Kaustubh Patil a/w. Roshan Sawant & Dixit Parmar for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. Ashwin Sakotkar a/w. Ms Sheetal Metakari i/b. Ms. Komal for Respondent –
                      BMC.

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

                                             DATE      : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026.

                      P.C.:


                      1.         Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the

                      Respondent-Corporation.


                      2.         The instant Writ Petition is preferred, inter alia, seeking the following

                      reliefs:


                                 “a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of mandamus
                                 or any other appropriate writ, order- and/or direction as it deems
                                 fit, thereby calling upon the Respondents, particularly Respondent
                                 Nos. 2 & 3, to produce all records in respect of the demolition
                                 carried out on 2nd January, 2023 of the Petitioner's premises i.e.
                                 Residential Room No. 1 admeasuring about 300 sq.ft, Qureshi
                                 Industrial Compound, Behram Baug. Opp. Lashkariya Tower,
                                 Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai 400102;
                                 b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to initiate appropriate action
                                 against the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 for demolishing the Petitioner's
                                 premises without following due process of law;
                                 (c) That this Hon'blc Court be pleased to permit the Petitioner to
                                 re-erect his residential premises i.e. Residential Room No. 1
                                 admeasuring about 300 sq. ft, Qureshi Industrial Compound,


                      AKN                                       1
                                                                       42.WP.3388.2025.doc


       Behram Baug, Opp. Lashkariya Towcr, Jogeshwari (Wcst),
       Mumbai 400102 at the same location as it stood prior to the illegal
       demolition carried out on 2nd January, 2023.”
3.     At the outset, learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that

at no point in time any such notices were being served upon to the Petitioner qua

the residential premises. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that

admittedly the Petitioner on the strength of some electricity connection bill tried to

impress to the Court that the property was also used for the commercial purpose.

He submits that the reliefs as prayed for under the facts and circumstances are

sustainable and accordingly adequate compensation may also be accorded.


4.     Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent-BMC resisted the reliefs

and submitted that the Designated Officer under section 351(1) of the Mumbai

Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short “the MMC Act”) has been appointed to

exercise the powers and functions under Sections 351, 352, 352A and 354A of the

MMC Act. The Schedule was also provided in the notice issued under section

351(1A) of the MMC Act dated 11/11/2022.


5.     He submits that it is an admitted case that there was no sanctioned plan. The

construction was totally unauthorized without any such approved plan merely on

the basis of purported electricity bill connection would not serve or substantiate the

rights of the Petitioner. It is pressed before the Court that the Petitioner has failed

to substantiate the rights on the basis of illegal construction over the scheduled

property. He submits that the Notice has been issued to the Petitioner and the same

has also been affixed at the door and the objections have also been filed.

Admittedly, the demolition has also been carried out way back in the year 2023,


AKN                                     2
                                                                     42.WP.3388.2025.doc


which is disputed. Such said disputed facts cannot be pressed in writ jurisdiction.


6.     We have heard the rival submissions and perused the records. In the facts

and circumstances, we put a pointed query to the Petitioner’s Counsel whether at

any point of time due permission was accorded by the Competent Authority under

the MMC Act and the response to this is negative. It is admitted case that no such

permission was ever accorded qua the said construction. Pursuant to the Notice

dated 11th November, 2022 issued under the MMC Act, 1888, the proceedings have

been finalized.


7.     We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the instant proceedings, which

warrants any interference under the Writ jurisdiction. However, the dismissal of

this Petition would not come in the way of the Petitioner to agitate his

case/grievances before the competent Civil Court in accordance with law, qua the

reliefs as pressed for by the Petitioner in the Writ Jurisdiction. We make it clear,

that we have not adverted into the merits of the matter.


8.     The Writ Petition is Disposed Of in the above terms, keeping open the issue

of limitation, if so raised.



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




AKN                                    3