KESHVI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR KAMLESH B. LIMBACHIYAversusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI

                                Digitally signed
                                by PALLAVI
                                MAHENDRA
                     PALLAVI    WARGAONKAR
                     MAHENDRA
                     WARGAONKAR Date:
                                2026.09.22
                                13:21:50
                                                                             50-WP-4387-2025.doc
                                +0530




Pallavi
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 4387 OF 2025

          Keshvi Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.                       … Petitioners
               V/s.
          The M.C.G.M. & Ors.                                     … Respondents


          Mr. Amrut Joshi a/w Mr. Nishant Chothani and Mr. Yash Chheda,
          Mr. Nivit Srivastava and Mr. Bhavya R. Shah i/b. Maniar Srivastava
          Associates for the Petitioners.

          Ms. Sheetal Metakari i/b. Komal Punjabi and Mr. Rajendra B.
          Dhonde, Addl. Fire Officer for Respondent - BMC.

          Mr. Pankaj Savant, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Nikhil Jayakar & Mr.
          Mayank Vira i/b. Ms. Smita Sawant for the Respondent No.7.

          Mr. Ramprakash Pandey for Respondent No.8.


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

                                       DATE        : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026.

          P.C.:


          1.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with

          their assistance, we have perused the record.


          2.      A detailed counter affidavit dated 1 st December 2025 has been

          filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 - BMC. It is apposite to mention

          here the complaint/grievance of the Petitioner was limited to the

          extent that the width of the road of less than 9 meters, contrary to



                                                       1
                                                               50-WP-4387-2025.doc


the statutory requirement under the Act for processing such plan.

For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the Affidavit-in-reply

are reproduced as under :


    “12. It is submitted that, as per the Architecture Plans, the subject
          plot abuts on 9.00 mtrs wide Topiwala Road towards West
          side. Further the L.S. has proposed 14.00 mtrs wide turning
          circle towards West side and opens spaces as 6.15 mtrs to
          12.34 vmirs towards South side and states that the
          Maximum habitable area is accessible from the open spaces
          provided towards West and South side, from where
          specialized fire appliances from this department can be
          operated.

    13.   I say and submit that considering the above parameters the
          provisional fire safety approval was issued by Fire
          department of Respondent /BMC as per Reg. 10(5)(2), DCPR
          2034.

    14.   I say and submit that later on due to complaint from the
          Petitioner for cancellation of the IOD dated 25.06.2025
          granted to M/s, Sahakar Group/Respondent no.7 for the
          redevelopment of Narmada Niwas CHSL, situated on Plot
          bearing CTS No. 797 and 797/1-9, Village Pahadi, Goregaon
          (West), falling within P/S Ward, the Executive Engineer
          (Building Proposal) of the Respondent/BMC by a letter dated
          12.11.2025 had requested Maintenance Department for
          status Report of Road as the complaint pertains to the
          existing road width leading to the said plot. It is alleged that
          the Road Width Status issued by the P/S Ward Maintenance
          Department does not reflect the actual site conditions and
          that the minimum width of the road is less than 9.00 meters
          as falsely represented by the Respondent no.7.

    15.   As per remarks of the Maintenance Department u/no.
          AC/PS/26059/AEM dated 17.11.2025, I say that the
          Maintenance Department of Respondent/BMC had issued
          Road Width Status reports to two different applicants 1. M/s.
          Tangents Design Cell on 20.12.2022 and 2. M/s. 3
          Dimensional Consultants LLP on 13.06.2025 which are as
          follows:-

      a. In Status Report dated 20.12.2022. for the stretch Opposite
         Topiwala CHS, i.e.. from "E" to "F", the recorded road width
         was 10.00 meters and for the adjoining stretch opposite
         Pahal Avenue, i.e., from "A" to "B" and "B" to "C", the recorded


                                    2
                                                       50-WP-4387-2025.doc


  widths were 9.30 meters and 9.20 meters respectively.

b. As per status report dated 13.6.2025, for the stretch opposite
   Topiwala CHS. i.e.. from "A" to "B", three width measurements
   were taken 10.20 meters, 10.00 meters, and 9.90 meters and
   for the adjoining stretch opposite Pahal Avenue, i.e., from "B"
   to "C", three width measurements were recorded: 9.50 meters.
   9.45 meters, and 9.60 meters. At both instances, the
   measurements       recorded    by     Respondent   BMC      are
   approximately identical, with no material deviation.

c. To ensure further clarity, a joint site visit was conducted on
   10.11.2025 in the presence of the Executive Engineer
   (Building Proposal) and representatives of both M/s. Keshvi
   Developers Pvt. Ltd./Petitioner And M/s. Sahakar
   Developers/Respondent no.7. During the site visit, the road
   widths previously measured and recorded by Respondent
   BMC were re-verified and found to be consistent with the
   earlier measurements as issued by P/S ward.

  Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-B, Exhibit-C and
  Exhibit-D are the copies of Status Report of the said Road
  width dated 20.12.2022. 13.6.2025 and 17.11.2025.

d. Both the CTS No. 797 and CTS No. 798 are located at the
   dead end of the said road. A portion of the boundary of CTS
   No.798 meets the main entrance gate of CTS No.797, creating
   a slight offset at the end of the road. At this location, three
   perpendicular road width measurements were taken 13.80
   meters, 16.30 meters and 9.00 meters directly in front of the
   gate of Narmada Niwas CHSL, The Petitioner's report about
   width 7.50 meters corresponds to a diagonal measurement
   taken fr the offset portion toward Topiwala Mall and does not
   repres the perpendicular road width. As per the standard
   engineer practices used for determining road width the width
   has to measured perpendicular to the alignment of road, the
   diago measurement submitted by petitioner does not align w
   standard engineering practices used for determining road
   width,

     I say and submit that, the above remarks shows factual
  and technical position of Respondent BMC regarding road
  width status of the road leading to Plot CTS No.797. I and
  submit that, furthermore, the road is a Municipal Road a
  maintained by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BM
  Also, municipal utilities such as the storm-water drain and str
  connection exist along this stretch. The road corresponds to C
  No. 746/1, as reflected in the Development Plan extract
  attach The road surface is developed with asphalt.”



                            3
                                                        50-WP-4387-2025.doc


3.     A perusal of the above makes it clear that the Respondent -

BMC has also carried out joint inspection/visit of the said road/site

on 10th November 2025, in the presence of the parties to the

proceedings, including the Petitioner and Respondent No.7.


4.     In light of the above, we do not find any irregularity, much

less illegality in the action of the Respondent – BMC which would

warrant interference in writ jurisdiction. These are matters of

measurement involving technical nuisances/expertise which the

Respondent – BMC being the Competent Authority has duly carried

out. Allegations of mistake and/or discrepancies in such exercise as

urged by Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the Petitioner does not

justify and/or warrant issuing any positive directions in these

proceedings, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India.


5.     Confronted with the factual situation that has emerged and

for the reasons noted above, we are not inclined to proceed further

in the matter and/or issue any directions.


6.     In our considered view, Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is

accordingly Dismissed.




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



                                 4