RAEES MADARSA AND WELFARE SOCIETY (MASJID)versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH GP OS

                                                                                 19-wp-3604-26.doc - corrected

  INGALE

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
           Digitally signed
                                       ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
           by URMILA
URMILA PRAMOD
       INGALE
PRAMOD Date:
INGALE 2026.09.18
       16:27:31
           +0530                           WRIT PETITION NO. 3604 OF 2026

                              Raees Madarsa and Welfare Society (Masjid)          ...Petitioner
                                   Versus
                              State of Maharashtra and ors.                       ...Respondents
                                                               ...
                              Mr. A.N.Giri a/w Mr. Sagar Batavia, for the Petitioner.
                              Mr.Milind V. More, Addl. GP, for the Respondent No.1-State.
                              Mr. Akshay Shinde, for Respondents No. 2 & 3.
                                                               ...

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

                                              DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026


                              P.C.:
                              1.         We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner,

                              learned AGP appearing for the Respondent No.1-State and

                              learned counsel for the Respondents No. 2 & 3.



                              2.         The instant Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of

                              the Constitution of India is preferred seeking the following

                              substantive reliefs.

                                      “a) That a writ of certiorari, writ of mandamus or any other
                                      appropriate writ, order or direction be issued calling for the
                                      records and after examining the legality and proprieties of the
                                      proceeding order dated 23rd June, 2026 passed/issued by
                                      respondent No.3 be quashed and set aside.


                                                                1
                                                               19-wp-3604-26.doc - corrected


         b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this writ petition
         the operation of order dated 23rd June, 2026 passed/issued by
         respondent No.3 be stayed.”



3.     We find that while passing the order, initially notice was

served under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and

Town Planning Act, 1966 (“the said Act of 1966”, for short)

indicating     therein    that   in    view        of    the      Government            of

Maharashtra Circular No. Petition/2014/No.219 (Part 4/UD-

20 dated 05/11/2016, instructions were issued to implement

the said proceedings as per time bound schedule. Whereas,

the subject Madarsa is located at G Block, Bandra East, Mouje

Kole Kalyan, Taluka, Andheri (opposite MTNL), fell within the

Costal Regulation Zone and was classified under ‘Category B’

for demolition.

4.     Accordingly, the demolition has been carried out in the

year    2018    and      admittedly,       while        issuing    a     Notice        on

15/09/2025, it has also been indicated that in lieu thereof

Unit No. 08 in Building 19A of Hiranandani Mankhurd Colony

was allotted. Admittedly, alternative site has accorded. Instead

of occupying the said allotted site, the Petitioner indulged in

unauthorised construction at the initial/earlier site.



                                       2
                                                19-wp-3604-26.doc - corrected


4.            Learned counsel for the Respondents, in this

background, raised the objection that the said Act of 1966 is a

self contained Act. Admittedly, the Notice has been issued and

later on, after carrying out demolition, the alternative site has

also been allotted. It is also admitted case that till date, no

such effort has been ever made to accord any such permission

for raising construction even though the exhaustive procedure

in this regard, is enshrined under the Section 45 of the said

Act of 1966. In case any such effort will be made, definitely, the

same can be initiated by the authority. During the midst of the

arguments, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that till

date, alternate site has not been settled in favour of the

Petitioner.



5.            Be that as it may. Without entering into merits of

the case, as actual demolition is carried out, at this stage, we

are not inclined to interfere with the issue of alleged

demolition. However, the Petitioner insists for alternative site.

It is always expected that an Application to that effect shall be

processed in the light of the Notice/Communication dated

15/09/2025 expeditiously, preferably, within a period of 3



                                 3
                                             19-wp-3604-26.doc - corrected


months from the date of production of certified copy of this

order.

6.        The Writ Petition is Disposed Of in the above terms,

leaving all contentions of parties open to be decided in

appropriate proceedings.




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




                              4