Bombay High Court
M/S RITU DEVELOPERSversusMIRA BHAYANDAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER)
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the impugned order should be kept in abeyance pending a fresh hearing before the Commissioner, and therefore did not grant the writs of certiorari or mandamus.
Summary
M/s Ritu Developers filed a writ petition challenging the Municipal Commissioner’s order dated 19 December 2024 that cancelled its revised Commencement Certificate and imposed development charges. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order and mandamus to restrain the municipal authorities and a co‑operative society from halting construction of Building “D” and from obstructing its construction vehicles. The Court examined whether the Commissioner had acted within his statutory powers and whether the order could be set aside. Finding that the parties were willing to address the matter afresh, the Court declined to grant the writs and instead kept the impugned order in abeyance. It directed that all parties appear before the Commissioner on a specified date for a fresh hearing and that a reasoned order be issued within 30 days thereafter.
Issues considered
- Whether the Municipal Commissioner’s order dated 19‑12‑2024 cancelling the revised Commencement Certificate is legally valid and liable to be quashed.
- Whether the Commissioner can lawfully restrain the petitioner’s construction activities and vehicular movement through the impugned order.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the writs of certiorari and mandamus sought in the petition.
Subjects
- Writ of Certiorari
- Writ of Mandamus
- Municipal Corporation
- Commencement Certificate
- Administrative Law
- Abeyance
- Construction
- Hearing
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
GAURI AMIT
GAURI GAEKWAD
AMIT Date:
GAEKWAD 2026.02.20
939.WP-3534-2025.odt
14:45:34
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3534 OF 2025
M/s. Ritu Developers
Having address at:
23/24, Pushpa Niketan,
Near Maxus Mall,
Near Flyover Bridge,
Bhayandar (West), Thane-401101
(Through Its Authorised Partner,
Mr.Rajaram Bhati, Aged 53 years) ....Petitioner
Versus
1. Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation
(Through its Commissioner)
2. The Commissioner,
Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation
Respondent No.1&2 Having Address at:
Head Office, Bhayandar (West)
Thane-401101
3. The Assistant Director-Town Planning
3rd Floor, collector office, Kharkar Alley,
Thane West, Thane, Maharashtra 400601
4. Garden Court C.H.S Ltd.,
Having it's address at:
Swami Satyanand Marg, Temba Road,
Bhayandar (West), Thane-401101
(Through its Secretary,
Mr. Ramakant Singhal,
Aged about 65 years) ....Respondents
----
Mr. M.P. Rao, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Sheetal Mhatre and
Ms. Manasi Sawant for the Petitioner.
Mr. N.R. Bubna for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Atul Damle, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Suraj N. Naik and
Gauri Gaekwad 1 of 5
939.WP-3534-2025.odt
Ms. Ketkee Kamble i/b. Mr. R.D. Suryawanshi for Respondent
No.4.
----
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 17th FEBRUARY, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
by the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner, who is a Developer, has put forth prayer
clauses [A] to [C], below paragraph no.26, as under :
[A] That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue
the Writ of certiorari and Writ in the nature of
certiorari and any other appropriate writ order or
direction ordering and after calling for the records
of the same Impugned order dated 19.12.2024 and
after going through the legality and validity of the
same be pleased to quash and set aside the
Impugned Order dated 19.12.2024 been Exhibit A
hereto.
[B] That, this Hon'ble court be please to issue a
Mandamus and Writ in the nature of Mandamus
and any other appropriate Writ, Order, and
Direction ordering and directing by a mandatory
order and injunction restraining the Respondent
No.4 by itself, its servant and agents, its office
bearers from in any manner stopping or
restraining the construction or work undertaken
Gauri Gaekwad 2 of 5
939.WP-3534-2025.odt
by the Petitioners in Building “D” upon the
property.
[C] That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a
Writ of Mandamus, Writ in the nature of
Mandamus and any other appropriate Writ Order
or Direction ordering and directing the
Respondent No.4 its Office bearers or its servants
and agents as also the Respondent No 1 from in
any manner stopping the vehicular movement of
the trucks of the Petitioners carrying construction
material, labors, raw materials etc; in the
construction of Building “D”.
3. Having considered the submissions of the learned
Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, the learned Advocate for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned Senior Advocate on behalf of
Respondent No.4 Society, we find that the grievance of the
Petitioner is that the then Commissioner conducted a hearing on
30th April, 2024 when the Petitioner tendered written submissions
with regard to the issue of cancellation of the revised
Commencement Certificate dated 8th April, 2022. The
Commissioner closed the matter for writing an order. On 29 th July,
2024, the Corporation demanded Metro development charges and
the last installment of the premium from the Petitioner. The
impugned order was passed on 19th December, 2024. As such, after
a hearing took place in April, 2024, the impugned order is passed on
Gauri Gaekwad 3 of 5
939.WP-3534-2025.odt
19th December, 2024.
4. In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off with
the direction that the impugned order would be kept in abeyance
since all the parties are agreeable to address the Commissioner
afresh.
5. By the consent of the parties, we direct as follows :
(a) All these parties shall appear before the
Municipal Commissioner on 5th March, 2026 at
11.30 a.m.
(b) On request, the Architects of the Petitioner and
Respondent No.4 would also be granted liberty to
attend the hearing and participate therein.
(c) All would be at liberty to address the Authority
one by one and the parties shall not address the
Commissioner at the same time. The decorum of
the office shall be maintained.
(d) The written notes of submissions can also be
filed by the stakeholders which includes
Respondent No.4 Society through its authorised
representative.
(e) The parties shall abide by the hearing dates as
may be posted by the Commissioner, if the
hearing does not conclude on 5th March, 2026.
Gauri Gaekwad 4 of 5
939.WP-3534-2025.odt
(f) After the hearing is concluded, we would
appreciate if the Commissioner would pass a
reasoned order within 30 days from the date of
conclusion of the hearing.
(g) Once the order is passed, the same would be
communicated to the stakeholders on their email
addresses within 24 hours. Each of the
stakeholders would tender their correct email
address to the office of the Commissioner by
mentioning it in their written notes of
submissions.
(h) Any party aggrieved by the order, would be at
liberty to follow the statutory regime and avail of
a statutory remedy as may be permissible in law.
6. Rule is discharged.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Gauri Gaekwad 5 of 5
Checking your session…