Bombay High Court
MRUDULA GORDHANDAS KAPADIA THRU HER CONSTITUTTE POA DEEPAK KAPADIAversusTHE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER BRIHANMUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that it will not examine the merits and expects compliance with the finalized demolition order under the MMC Act.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition alleging that the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) had issued a notice under section 351(1A) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, directing demolition of an illegal structure, and that the proceedings had been finalized yet no demolition was carried out. The respondent (the third respondent) contended that the proceedings were ex‑parte. The Court observed that it would not delve into the merits of the petition and emphasized that if the demolition proceedings are indeed finalized and there is no other impediment, the order must be complied with in letter and spirit. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition without granting any relief. The decision underscores the expectation of strict compliance with finalized municipal demolition orders.
Issues considered
- Whether the Court should entertain the merits of a petition challenging non‑compliance with a demolition order issued under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act.
- Whether the ex‑parte nature of the proceedings, as alleged by the respondent, affects the enforceability of the demolition order.
- Whether a notice issued under section 351(1A) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act creates a binding duty that must be executed once the proceedings are finalized.
Legislation cited
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 — s. 351(1A)
Subjects
- demolition
- illegal structure
- municipal authority
- ex‑parte proceedings
- compliance with notice
- municipal law
Judgment
ANANT
KRISHNA
37.WP.4449.2026.doc
NAIK
Digitally signed by
ANANT KRISHNA
NAIK
Date: 2026.09.23
10:51:23 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4449 OF 2026
Mrudula Gordhandas Kapadia … Petitioner
versus
The Municipal Commissioner, Brihanmumbai
Municipal Corporation & Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Prathmesh Bargude a/w. Mr. Ameya Tawde i/b. Mr. K. Amol for the Petitioner.
Ms. K. H. Mastakar for Respondent - BMC.
Mr. Ramachandran Narayanan a/w. Ms. Purva Pendurkar, Mr. Kishor More, Mr.
Aayush Ramachandran i/b. M/s. Narayanan & Narayanan for Respondent No.3.
Mr. Vivek Bagde, Sub Eng, F/North Ward present.
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Learned Counsel for Petitioner vehemently contended that the complaint of
the Petitioner had been entertained by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation
(BMC) and accordingly the Notice under 351(1A) of the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation Act, 1888 (for short “The MMC Act”) had already been issued to the
Respondent No. 3. It has also claimed that the said proceeding has been finalized,
in spite of which, no action has been taken to carry out the actual demolition of
illegal structure at the site.
2. Mr. Narayanan, the learned Counsel, who appears for the Respondent No. 3
submits that the entire proceedings is an ex-parte.
3. Be that as it may. In the given facts and circumstances, we are not inclined
AKN 1
37.WP.4449.2026.doc
to advert into the merits of the matter. Suffice to indicate, in case proceedings are
finalized and there is no other impediment, we expect the same be complied with
in letter and spirit.
4. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition is Disposed Of.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
AKN 2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.