Bombay High Court
HUSSAIN ABBASALI KHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is disposed without granting the reliefs sought, with the Court directing the municipal authorities to enforce the speaking order within three months.
Summary
The petitioner, Hussain Abbasali Khan, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (Respondents 2 and 3) to demolish an allegedly unauthorized vertical structure and to order a departmental enquiry against officials for alleged dereliction of duty. He alleged that although a speaking order dated 12 December 2024 declared the structure illegal and demolition was purportedly carried out on 13 February 2025, the demolition was a sham and the corporation failed to produce a physical Panchanama despite a Right‑to‑Information request. The petitioner also demanded a compliance report and disciplinary action against the officials. The Court, after hearing counsel, declined to entertain the merits of the petition and instead directed the respondents to enforce the speaking order within three months of the certified copy of the order. No notice was issued to the respondents and the petition was disposed without granting any relief. All contentions were left open for future consideration.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing demolition of the unauthorized structure.
- Whether the Court should order a departmental enquiry and disciplinary proceedings against municipal officials.
- Whether the petition can be dismissed without adjudicating the merits on the basis of procedural considerations.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- mandamus
- unauthorized construction
- municipal corporation
- demolition
- right to information
- departmental enquiry
- speaking order
- sham demolition
Judgment
PDP 16-WP-4497-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by PRAVIN
PRAVIN DASHARATH
DASHARATH PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 4497 OF 2026
PANDIT Date:
2026.09.29
10:19:01 +0530
Hussain Abbasali Khan .. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
...
Mr. A. A. Siddiquie a/w Mr. Chowdhari Moin i/by A. A. Siddiquie &
Associates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant Parshurami, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 4 – State.
Ms. Sheetal Metakari i/by Ms. Komal Punjabi for Respondent Nos.2
and 3 – BMC.
…
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. By the instant Writ Petition, the Petitioner prays for the
following substantive reliefs: -
“(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ
of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or
direction, directing Respondent No.2 and Respondent
No.3 to forthwith completely and physically demolish the
unauthorized vertical structure erected by Mr. Pappu
Siddiqui Khan at Siddiqui Mohammad Chawl, Gavdevi
Road, Poisar, Kandivali (E), Mumbai 400 101, in strict
enforcement of the Speaking Order dated 12 th December,
2024 (Exh.C);
(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ
of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or
1
PDP 16-WP-4497-2026.doc
direction, directing Respondent No.1 to initiate a strict
departmental enquiry and disciplinary proceedings
against Respondent No.3, the concerned stall of
Respondent No.2 and the concerned officers of
Respondent No.4 for their gross dereliction of duty,
malafide inaction, filing of sham demolition reports, and
connivance in protecting the unauthorized structure;
(c) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct
Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 to submit a
detailed compliance report, photographic evidence, and
the final physical Demolition Panchanama to this
Hon’ble Court within a time-bound period;”
2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
respective parties. In view of the order that we propose to pass today,
we are not inclined to issue notice to the Respondents or keep the
matter pending. However, the Petitioner is directed to supply copy of
the Writ Petition to the learned Counsel for the Respondents.
3. The Petitioner, who is a complainant, approached this
Court for a direction to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3-Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai, which is a statutory body constituted
under the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently submits that as the
mandatory duty is cast upon the Corporation to ensure that there
may not be any such development/construction, except in accordance
with law.
4. He submits that on 5th December, 2024, the Respondent
No.3 issued a statutory Stop Work Notice under Section 354(a) of the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 to the alleged encroacher
one Mr. Pappu Siddiqui Khan. In response to the Stop Work Notice, a
reply letter dated 10th December, 2024 was submitted by the said
encroacher. The Respondent No.3 after scrutinizing the documents
2
PDP 16-WP-4497-2026.doc
submitted by such alleged encroacher, passed a speaking Order on
12th December, 2024 declaring the subject structure as unauthorized
and liable for demolition. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner
further submits that the demolition was carried out on 13 th February,
2025. Realizing that the demolition was a mere sham to protect the
illegal structure, the Petitioner filed an Application under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 on 17 th September, 2025, demanding final
demolition report and the official Panchanama of the action taken by
the Respondent No.3 on 13 th February, 2025. However, an evasive
reply dated 25th September, 2026 was issued, which mentioned that
information regarding Panchanama is not available and the details of
action taken is available on RETMS Portal.
5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
refusal to provide physical Panchanama confirms that no complete or
lawful demolition was ever executed as per the speaking Order dated
12th December, 2024. He submits that inspite of the speaking Order
dated 12th December, 2024 passed by the concerned Authority, till
date the same has not been enforced.
6. Be that as it may. We are not inclined to advert into the
merits of the matter. In the given fact situation, we observe that in
case after the enquiry, it has been found certain construction has
been carried out contrary to law, we expect the concerned Authority
to take a final call expeditiously to ensure that speaking Order dated
12th December, 2024 is effectively complied with, if there are no other
impediments, preferably within a period of three months from the
production of the certified copy of this Order, before the Respondent-
Authority, by the Petitioner.
3
PDP 16-WP-4497-2026.doc
7. In view of the above, Writ Petition is Disposed Of.
8. Needless to state, we have not adverted to the merits of the
matter and all contentions are kept open.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.