MAHAMMED HASASN SHASTIKARversusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER

          Digitally
          signed by
          GAURI AMIT
GAURI     GAEKWAD
                                                                          909.WP-3576-2025.odt
AMIT      Date:
GAEKWAD   2026.08.21
          10:38:00
          +0530          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                     WRIT PETITION NO.3576 OF 2025

                  Mahammed Hasan Shastikar               ….Petitioner
                            Versus
                  The Municipal Corporation of
                  Greater Mumbai and Ors.                ….Respondents

                                                ----
                  Mr. Ranjeev Carvalho a/w. Mr. Uzair Kaize and Ms. J. Pereira for
                  the Petitioner.
                  Mr. Ramdas Hake a/w. Ms. Sheetal Metakari for the Respondent,
                  the BMC.
                  Mrs. Varsha Sawant, AGP for Respondent No.3.
                  Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w. Mr. Zulfiqar Jariwala and Advocate
                  Maryam Borsadwala i/b. Jariwala Associates for Respondent No.5.
                                                ----

                                             CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ.
                                                            &
                                                    GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

                                             DATE     : 20th AUGUST, 2026

                  P.C. :-

                  1.              We have perused the ad-interim order passed by this

                  Court on 2nd September, 2024. Respondent No.5 was specifically

                  arrayed as a party by way of an amendment carried out by the

                  Petitioner, on the ground that the Corporation was leaning

                  favourably towards Respondent No.5 and that the Petitioner was

                  being singled out for action against an offending structure.



                  Gauri Gaekwad                     1 of 4
                                                      909.WP-3576-2025.odt




2.              Having considered the submissions of the learned

Advocates for the respective sides, it is now undisputed that the

Petitioner has not even moved an application for regularisation of

his mezzanine floor. After he received the impugned notice dated

2nd August, 2024, from the Corporation exercising powers under

Section 351(1) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888,

and Sections 351, 352, 352A and 354A, an order dated 23rd August,

2024 was passed with regard to the unauthorised structure on the

entire first floor. The Petitioner’s grievance was that different

treatment was being meted out by the Corporation to different

persons.



3.              Today, the learned Advocate for the Corporation

submits that, since the Petitioner did not tender any documents, the

impugned order was passed on 23rd August, 2024. If the Petitioner

files a proper application seeking regularisation, accompanied by

appropriate documents as are required to be considered while

dealing with such applications, the request for regularisation would

be considered on its own merits.




Gauri Gaekwad                      2 of 4
                                                                 909.WP-3576-2025.odt




4.              Since the Corporation has made the above statement,

we grant the same liberty to the added Respondent No.5 to file an

application      seeking     regularisation,     along    with   all     relevant

documents which the party may desire to annex. The Corporation

would consider the applications of the Petitioner, as well as,

Respondent No.5, on their own merits, strictly in accordance with

law, and pass a reasoned order. The Corporation would refrain from

taking a shifting stand with regard to both these applications and

shall apply the same parameters as are required to be applied while

deciding such applications.



5.              If   these    parties     make     such    applications         for

regularisation within a period of 15 days from today, the

Corporation would deal with the said applications within a period of

60 days thereafter and pass a reasoned order. We record the fact that

Respondent No.5 has, by himself, removed the offending structure.

His application would now be at par with the application of the

Petitioner and, if regularisation is granted to the Petitioner, the

added Respondent would then be at liberty to construct the

mezzanine floor as per the permission granted by the Corporation.




Gauri Gaekwad                           3 of 4
                                                            909.WP-3576-2025.odt




6.              In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off.



7.              All contentions of all the parties are kept open.




(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.)                        (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)




Gauri Gaekwad                        4 of 4