Bombay High Court
IMTIYAZ G. SABLEversusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition without entertaining its merits, directing that any pending representation be decided by the competent authority after hearing.
Summary
Imtiyaz G. Sable filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to act on his complaint about unauthorized construction in the E‑ward. The Corporation raised a preliminary objection, labeling the petitioner a habitual complainant and questioning the propriety of the petition. The Court, without addressing the merits, declined to keep the petition pending or to order counter‑affidavits. It observed that any pending representation or complaint should be decided by the competent authority after giving a hearing to all affected parties. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of with directions to the authority to adjudicate the matter in accordance with law.
Issues considered
- Whether the Court should entertain a writ petition seeking a direction to the Municipal Corporation to consider a complaint of unauthorized construction.
- Whether the preliminary objection that the petitioner is a habitual complainant warrants dismissal of the petition.
- Whether the petition should be kept pending or counter‑affidavits be invited at this stage.
Subjects
- unauthorized construction
- municipal corporation
- writ petition
- preliminary objection
- habitual complainant
- jurisdiction
- relief
Judgment
Digitally signed
by MAYUR
MAYUR KONDIRAM
ADANE
KONDIRAM Date:
ADANE 2026.09.21
10:46:47
+0530
17-WP-4383-2026 (OS).doc
Mayur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4383 OF 2026
Imtiyaz G. Sable ...Petitioner
Versus
The Municipal Corporation Of
Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents
...
Adv. Vimod Y. Mishra, for the Petitioner.
Adv. Shweta Patanar, for the Respondent Nos.1,2,4,5, and 6 -BMC.
Mr. Dattatray Patil, Assistant Engineer (B&F) E-ward.
...
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 18th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to
the Respondent - Municipal Corporation to consider the Petitioner's
complaint regarding unauthorized construction in E-ward of the
Municipal Corporation and to take suitable action under the
applicable statutory scheme and framework.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent - Municipal
Corporation raises a preliminary objection, submitting that the
1
17-WP-4383-2026 (OS).doc
Petitioner is a habitual complainant.
4. Considering the nature of the relief prayed for, we are not
inclined to keep this Writ Petition pending or invite counter
affidavits at this stage. However, without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the case, we observe that if any
Representation/Complaint of the Petitioner is pending
consideration before the competent authority, the same may be
adverted to and decided in accordance with law, after giving due
opportunity of hearing to all affected parties.
5. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition stands
Disposed of.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.