PRITESH NARHARIBHAI PATELversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE MINISTER OF HOUSING DEPARTMENT

                                                                                    (13)-WP-3453-25.doc

       PANCHAL

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
          Digitally
          signed by
          BALAJI
BALAJI    GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL   Date:
          2026.09.30
                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 3453 OF 2025
          10:46:47
          +0530




                       Pritesh Narharibhai Patel                              ...Petitioner
                             Versus
                       The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                        ...Respondents
                                                           ...
                       Mr. Sunil Kumar a/w Mr. Siddharth Singh, Mr. Ishan Sarvya,
                       Ms. Swati Singh & Ms. Muskan Palaskar i/by M/s. Kumar &
                       Associates, for the Petitioner.

                       Mr. Prashant Kamble, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2-State.

                       Ms. K. H. Mastakar, for Respondent Nos.3 & 4-BMC.
                                                    ...

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

                                       DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

                       P.C.:
                       1.         The instant Writ Petition has been filed, inter-alia,
                       praying for the following substantive reliefs :-
                                  “(b) That, this Honourable Court be pleased to exercise its
                                  jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                                  by issuing Writ of Mandamus and/or any appropriate Writ
                                  or Order or Director in the nature of Mandamus thereby
                                  directing the Respondent No.2 (i) to consider the
                                  Representation made by the Petitioner before the
                                  Respondent No.2 in July 2013 pursuant to the Order dated
                                  10/05/2013 passed in Writ Petition No.579 of 2012 which
                                  is till date pending before the Respondent No.2, and, (ii) in
                                  case the said Representation of the Petitioner is not
                                  available in the office of the Respondent No.2, then a fresh
                                  liberty be granted to the Petitioner to approach the
                                  Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for rehabilitation of alternate
                                  accommodation in * lieu of the Subject Structure i.e. R.C.C.
                                  Shed comprising of 7 Shops lying and being on the Plot of
                                  Land bearing Final Plot ION No.12 of Town Planning


                                                           1
                                                           (13)-WP-3453-25.doc


          Scheme No. II, Borivali, corresponding to C.T.S. No. 30
          (Part) of Village Kanheri, situated at M. G. Road, Borivali
          East, Mumbai-400 066 admeasuring 8000 Square Feet,
          within the Municipal Jurisdiction of R/Central Ward of
          Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and within the
          limit of Registration Sub-District and District Mumbai City
          and Mumbai Suburban, pursuant to the Orders dated
          11/08/2004        bearing   No.    Τ.Ρ.Β.   -4320/116/Pra.
          Ka./163/2000/UD, and, Order dated 22/03/2006
          bearing No. T.P.B.-4320/116/Pra. Ka./163/2000/UD
          passed by the then Hon'ble Minister of the Respondent
          No.2, within the stipulated period as this Honourable Court
          deems fit and proper.”

2.        Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
despite the Petitioner’s representation in June, 2013 and
repeated follow-ups, no decision was taken. In 2025, the
Petitioner was informed that the representation was not
traceable and was asked to submit a fresh representation.


3.        Learned Counsel for the Petitioner confines the relief
to the extent that liberty be granted to the Petitioner to move a
fresh representation before the Respondent No.2.


4.        Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
we are not inclined to delve into the merits. In case the
Petitioner moves a fresh representation, within two weeks
before the Competent Authority, we expect the Competent
Authority of the Respondents to proceed and consider such
representation preferred by the Petitioner in the light of the
order dated 10th May, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in Writ Petition No. 579 of 2012, as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of three months from the
date of production of this Order by the Petitioner, certainly



                                  2
                                                      (13)-WP-3453-25.doc


after   giving   ample   opportunity   of   hearing   to   all     the
stakeholders.


5.         With the aforesaid directions, Writ Petition is
Disposed Of, without adverting on merits of the matter.




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




                                3