Bombay High Court
SAHISTA SHAIKHversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GR MUMBAI
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court did not decide the merits but directed the BMC to adjudicate the petitioner’s representations within three months, thereby disposing of the writ petition.
Summary
Sahista Shaikh filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus directing the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (BMC) to remove an alleged unauthorized construction on the 8th‑floor refuge area of Unique Heights, A‑Wing, which she claims contravenes the building plan approved on 27 August 2014. The petitioner submitted representations to the BMC on 30 December 2025 and 25 May 2026 highlighting the violation. No counsel appeared for the petitioner, and the Court, without examining the merits, ordered the BMC to consider the representations and give a decision within three months, after hearing all stakeholders. The petition was thereafter disposed, with the Court expressly reserving the right to consider the parties’ contentions at a later stage.
Issues considered
- Whether the BMC is obligated to remove the alleged unauthorized construction on the refuge area.
- Whether a writ of mandamus under Article 226 is the appropriate remedy.
- Whether the petitioner's representations compel the Court to adjudicate the merits of the construction violation.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- Writ of Mandamus
- Article 226
- Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
- Unauthorized construction
- Refuge area
- Building plan approval
- Civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
20-WP.4263.2026.doc
Salunke
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Digitally
signed by
JAYANT
JAYANT VISHWANATH
VISHWANATH SALUNKE
SALUNKE Date:
2026.09.11
WRIT PETITION NO. 4263 OF 2026
18:47:56
+0530
Sahista Shaikh } Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater }
Mumbai & Ors. } Respondents
None for the Petitioner.
Ms. Shweta Patankar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (BMC).
Mr. Asif Memon, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5.
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C.:
1. None present on behalf of the Petitioner.
2. The instant petition is preferred seeking the following reliefs: -
“a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ under Writ
of Mandamus under article 226 of the Construction (Sic.
Constitution) of India, or any other appropriate writ and call
for record and proceeding pertaining to the file of Suit
Building.
b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to directing
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to forthwith remove the
unauthorized construction and encroachment upon the
mandatory Refuge Area situated on the 8 th Floor of Unique
Heights, ‘A’ Wing, bearing Final Plot No. 524, T.P.S. III,
M.M.C. Road, Mahim (West), Mumbai-400 016, and to
restore the said Refuge Area to its original sanctioned
condition in accordance with the sanctioned building plan
dated 27.08.2014, within a period of two weeks or within
such time as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.
1
20-WP.4263.2026.doc
Any other appropriate direction, order be granted which this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant.”
3. The entire claim is set up on the ground that the competent
authority has approved the plan on 27th August 2014 and there is
certain construction over the 8th floor of Unique Heights, ‘A’ Wing,
bearing Final Plot No. 524, T.P.S. III, M.M.C. Road, Mahim (West),
Mumbai-400 016, which is contrary to the approved plan.
4. It is stated by the petitioner that by detailed representations
dated 30th December 2025 and 25th May 2026, the petitioner has
brought the aforesaid fact to the notice of respondent nos. 1 to 3
(BMC).
5. Be that as it may. Without adverting to the merits of the
matter, we direct respondent nos. 1 to 3 to decide the said
representations dated 30th December 2025 and 25th May 2026
within a period of 3 months from today after affording an
opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders.
6. With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
7. Needless to state that we have not adverted to the merits of
matter and all contentions of the parties are kept open.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.