JAYESH HIRALAL GUPTAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS

P.H. Jayani                                                               43 WP3555.2026.doc


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3555 OF 2026

Mr. Jayesh Hiralal Gupta                                       …. Petitioner
      V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.                              …. Respondents

Mr. Sandeep Mishra i/b. Adv. Madhura Mulay for the Petitioner.
Smt. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent No.1 – State.
Mr. Aniesh S. Jadhav a/w. Adv. Mahadji Phalke, Mr. Nikhil Adkine and
Mr. Rushikesh Kekane for Respondent Nos.2 to 6.

                                            CORAM : M.S. KARNIK AND
                                                    SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.

                                            DATED    : 24th MARCH, 2026

ORDER : (PER : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)

1)            Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2)            Although several reliefs have been prayed for by the Petitioner,

in the facts of the case and after hearing the parties, we deem it appropriate

to consider this Petition only in relation to prayer clause (e) which reads

thus :-

              “ (e) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents
              no.2 to 6 by an appropriate writ or an order to direct the respondent
              nos.2 to 6 to forthwith take action on the complaint dated
              01.01.2026 made by the petitioner and thereby initiate action and
              take appropriate steps in respect of the irregularities and illegalities
              set out in the complaint. ”

3)            The facts giving rise to this Petition are that, Respondent Nos.2

and 4 have published draft development plan under Section 26 of the

                                                                                         1/3
P.H. Jayani                                                       43 WP3555.2026.doc


Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and invited

suggestions and objections of public at large. ‘ Anand Koliwada Main Road’

(Old Mumbra-Panvel-Pune Road) has been falling in the said plan. The

Petitioner has taken objection on 21/11/2024 that “ the said existing road

in the Development Plan shown with no road width and even in the Draft

Development Plan also, it appears to be no road width.” In the objection,

the Petitioner has also requested Respondent Nos.2 to 6 to consider the

congested area and density of the population of Anand Koliwada, etc. The

Petitioner states that, the said road was encroached by unauthorized

construction. On 29/12/2024, the Assistant Commissioner, Mumbra

Prabhag Samiti, Thane issued notices under Section 260(1)(2) of the MMC

Act to various shop holders whose structures are unauthorized and the

same was carried out on the portion of said existing road. The Petitioner

submits that on 01/01/2026 and prior to that, on several occasions, the

Petitioner has made complaint against unauthorized construction as carried

out on the said existing road. However, no action is taken on the said

notice/s issued by the Authority and the complaints filed by the Petitioner.

Therefore, the Petitioner has filed this Petition.

4)            During the course of hearing of this Petition, the learned

Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 6 – Thane Municipal Corporation, on

instructions, made a statement that the said Representation will be decided

by Respondent Nos.2 to 6 within a period of eight weeks from the date of

                                                                                2/3
                      P.H. Jayani                                                          43 WP3555.2026.doc


                      communication of this Order. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not

                      taken any exception to this suggestion. Therefore, the said statement is

                      accepted as an undertaking to the Court.

                      5)            In the backdrop, the Petition deserves to be partly allowed.

                      Hence, we pass the following Order :-

                                    (a)     The Petition is partly allowed.

                                    (b)     The Respondent Nos.2 to 6-Thane Municipal Corporation

                                    are directed to take action on the complaint/representation

                                    dated 01/01/2026 filed by the Petitioner and decide the same

                                    within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication

                                    of this Order.

                                    (c)     The Respondent No.6 to look into the notice/s issued

                                    under Section 260(1)(2) of MMC Act in accordance with the

                                    law and after hearing the parties concerned take appropriate

                                    action.

                                    (d)     The question of delay on part of the Petitioner, is kept

                                    open.

                      6)            Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.



                           (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)                             (M.S. KARNIK, J.)
  PREETI
  HEERO
  JAYANI
Digitally signed by
PREETI HEERO
JAYANI
Date: 2026.04.01
10:28:08 +0530




                                                                                                         3/3