Bombay High Court

MR. MUSHTAQ AHMED ABDULversusTHE CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER AND ORS

Decided: 4 March 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: BHARATI DANGRE MANJUSHA AJAY DESHPANDE

Holding

The Court directed the respondent to communicate its decision on the complaint within four weeks and disposed of the petition.

Summary

The petitioner, Mushtaq Ahmed Abdul, filed a writ petition alleging that the Chief Vigilance Officer of MHADA failed to take cognizance of a complaint he lodged on 15 December 2022, which also implicated the police department for alleged irregularities. He sought a directive compelling the vigilance officer to register the complaint and consider further challenges to any decision. The respondent, MHADA, through counsel, stated that there was no encroachment as alleged and promised to communicate a decision on the complaint within four weeks of the hearing. The Court, after hearing both sides, accepted the respondent's undertaking and ordered that the decision be communicated within the stipulated period. Consequently, the petition was disposed of without further orders.

Issues considered

Whether the Chief Vigilance Officer, MHADA, can be directed by the Court to take cognizance of the petitioner's complaint dated 15 December 2022
Whether the writ petition is maintainable for the purpose of compelling administrative action

Subjects

writ petition
vigilance officer
cognizance
administrative inaction
MHADA
civil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                        13-WP-3537-2023.DOC




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                  WRIT PETITION NO.3537 OF 2023


Mushtaq Ahmed Abdul                                       …Petitioner
     Versus
The Chief Vigilance Officer, Mumbai & Ors.                …Respondents


Mr. Amogh Singh a/w. Mr. Ashwin S. Tripathi, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Manisha Jagtap, for the Respondent-MHADA.


                       CORAM:         BHARATI DANGRE &
                                      MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
                       DATED :        4th MARCH 2026
PC:


1.       Heard learned Counsel Mr. Amogh Singh, for the Petitioner

who is aggrieved on account of the inaction on part of the Chief

Vigilance Officer, MHADA in taking cognizance of his complaint

dated 15th December 2022.



         According to him, a complaint is also addressed to Police

Department       alleging   several    irregularities    committed      by

Respondent No.3.



2.       Mr. Singh, would submit before us that for the present if the

Respondent No.1 is directed to take cognizance of the complaint



                                 Page 1
Sonali
                                                                   13-WP-3537-2023.DOC




                preferred by him which is annexed at page 27 of the Petition, by

                leaving the liberty open to him to raise the further challenge to the

                decision taken, the Petition can be disposed of.



                3.       We have heard Ms. Jagtap representing the Respondent-

                MHADA and though she has instructions to make statement that

                there is no encroachment as alleged, she make a statement that a

                decision on the complaint dated 15th December 2022 shall be

                communicated to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from

                today.



                4.       In the wake of the aforesaid statement, the Petition is

                disposed of.




                [MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.]                    [BHARATI DANGRE, J.]




       Digitally
       signed by
       SONALI
SONALI MILIND
MILIND PATIL
PATIL Date:
       2026.03.06
       10:38:14
       +0530



                                                Page 2
                Sonali

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…