Bombay High Court
VIBRANT HOUSE LLPversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that it could not grant the mandamus and instead directed the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the competent authority, which must decide the claim within a stipulated period.
Summary
Vibrant House LLP filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to refund an excess premium of Rs.2,03,98,170 along with 12% per annum interest, alleging that the amount was collected contrary to a Maharashtra State Government notification and an MCGM circular. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court decision (Prasad Pandurang Tapkir v. Assistant Director of Town Planning) to support the claim. The Court, however, did not adjudicate the merits and instead directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the competent authority within a week, which must decide the matter within two months and issue a reasoned order. No opinion on the substantive refund claim was expressed. Consequently, the petition was disposed without granting the relief sought.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy for a petitioner who has allegedly paid excess premium to a municipal corporation under a government notification and circular?
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing immediate refund of the excess amount and interest, or must the petitioner first approach the competent authority under the applicable notification and circular?
Subjects
- Article 226
- Writ of Mandamus
- Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
- Refund of excess premium
- Government notification
- MCGM circular
- Representation before competent authority
- Interest on statutory dues
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
MAYUR
MAYUR KONDIRAM
KONDIRAM ADANE
ADANE Date:
2026.09.28
11:09:56
+0530
2-WP-4483-2026 (OS).doc
Mayur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4483 OF 2026
Vibrant House Llp ...Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai ...Respondent
...
Adv. Bhavin Gada, a/w Adv. Hitesh Solanki, i/b Hitesh &
Associates, for the Petitioner.
Adv. K.H. Mastakar, for the Respondent-BMC.
...
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
2. The instant Writ Petition is preferred, inter alia, praying for
the following substantive reliefs :-
(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of
Mandamus or a Writ in nature of Mandamus and/or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India directing the MCGM to refund to the
Petitioner the excess amount of Rs.2,03,98,170/- (Rupees Two
Crore Three Lakh Ninety Eight Thousand One Hundred &
Seventy Only) collected as premium and other charges along
with interest thereon @12% p.a. with effect from 27.12.2021
(being the date on which the building plans were approved
under 2034) till the payment thereof along with the accrued
interest;
(b) In alternative to prayer (a) above, this Hon'ble Court be
pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in nature of
Mandamus and / or any other appropriate writ, order or
1/3
2-WP-4483-2026 (OS).doc
direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing
the MCGM to adjust the
excess amount of with effect from 27.12.2021 (being the date on
which the building plans were approved under 2034) till the
payment thereof along with the accrued interest towards
various premium, charges, cess, etc. that may be payable by the
Petitioner and/or
any of its affiliates in any other projects or projects in which the
partners of the Petitioner are interested, till the entire amount to
be refunded along with the accrued interest thereon is
exhausted;
(c) The cost of this Petition be awarded to the Petitioner;
and
(d) Such other orders be passed & reliefs be granted in favour of
Petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just, legal and
proper.
3. Considering the order that we propose to pass in this
proceedings no Court Notice is required to be issued to the
Respondents.
4. Mr. Bhavin Gada, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that the Petitioner has deposited an excess amount of
Rs.2,03,98,170/- towards premium and other charges collected by
the Respondent - Corporation, along with interest thereon at the
rate of 12% per annum with effect from 27 th December 2021. This is
in light of the Maharashtra State Government Notification dated
14th January 2021 and the MCGM Circular No.
Ch.E./DP/21546/Gen dated 5th March 2021.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has prayed for a positive
direction to be issued to the Respondent-Corporation to refund the
said excess amount to the Petitioner. In support of the above
2/3
2-WP-4483-2026 (OS).doc
submission, he has also placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prasad Pandurang Tapkir and
another vs. The Assistant Director of Town Planning, Pune
District, Pune and others1, which we have noted.
6. However, in the given facts before us, we except that, in the
event the Petitioner files a fresh Representation/Application, if not
so done already, before the Competent Authority within a period of
one week from the date of uploading of this order, the Competent
Authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with
law. This upon taking into account the Government Notification
dated 14th January 2021 and the MCGM Circular No.
Ch.E./DP/21546/Gen dated 5th March 2021. The Competent
Authority shall then pass a reasoned and speaking order, as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months
thereafter.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the matter.
8. The Writ Petition stands Disposed Of accordingly.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
1
. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9666 of 2023 decided on 13th July 2026.
3/3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.