Bombay High Court
JAGADISH MALLIKARJUN PATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT. AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
A writ of mandamus cannot be issued where the public authority has not failed to perform its duty, as the corporation was actively processing the petitioner's application.
Summary
The petitioner, Jagadish Mallikarjun Patil, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Maharashtra State Urban Development Corporation to grant permission under Section 22(1) of the Maharashtra Slum (Improvement, Abolition and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, so that he could sue a wilful defaulter for eviction. The petition alleged that the corporation had failed to perform its statutory duty by not granting the permission. The court examined the record and found that the corporation had already taken cognizance of the petitioner's application filed on 27‑12‑2023 and a hearing was scheduled for 29‑12‑2023, indicating that the process was underway. Since there was no failure or refusal by the public authority, the requisites for issuing a writ of mandamus were not satisfied. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition without granting the relief sought.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy when a public authority is alleged to have failed to grant permission under Section 22(1) of the Maharashtra Slum (Improvement, Abolition and Redevelopment) Act, 1971?
- Whether the Maharashtra State Urban Development Corporation's taking cognizance of the petitioner's application constitutes a failure to perform its statutory duty, thereby justifying a writ of mandamus.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Slum (Improvement, Abolition and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — s. 22(1)
Subjects
- mandamus
- writ petition
- public authority
- administrative law
- Maharashtra Slum Act
- eviction
- statutory duty
Judgment
55-WP-4904-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4904 OF 2026
Jagadish Mallikarjun Patil ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of Maharashtra Thr. Urban Development ...Respondents
Dept. And Others
——————
Mr. Tanaji Mhatugade - Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. R. S. Pawar - AGP for the Respondent-State
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : October 06, 2026.
P. C. :
1. By the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of
mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to forthwith grant permission to
the Petitioner under Section 22 (1) of the Maharashtra Slum
(Improvement, Abolition and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, after hearing
the parties, to institute a suit for eviction against the wilful defaulter of
the Petitioner.
2. Perusal of the record would indicate that, pursuant to the
application iled by the Petitioner on 27.12.2023, a hearing was ixed on
29.12.2023. It is, therefore, evident that the Corporation is proceeding
SG Punde 1 of 2
55-WP-4904-2026.doc
with the said application. The relief sought by the Petitioner for
issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.
2/Corporation to grant permission is, therefore, clearly misconceived.
3. A writ of mandamus can be issued where there is a failure on the
part of a public authority to perform a public duty. In the present case,
no such failure on the part of the Corporation is demonstrated.
4. In the present case, we ind that the Corporation has taken
cognizance of the application iled by the Petitioner and is proceeding
with the same. Therefore, there is no failure on the part of the
Respondent No. 2/ Corporation to perform its statutory duties so as to
warrant issuance of a writ of mandamus.
5. Resultantly, the Petition stands disposed of.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
SG Punde 2 of 2
Checking your session…