Bombay High Court
NARENDRA DEVJI DEDHIAversusMUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is disposed with a direction for fresh inspection and a stay of any coercive action until compliance with Section 53 of the MRTP Act is ascertained.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition in 2015 challenging a notice issued under Section 53(i) of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), seeking a stay of any coercive or penal action. The court ordered a fresh inspection of the petitioner’s structure, which was carried out on 21‑01‑2020, and an affidavit indicated certain violations of the sanctioned plan dated 04‑10‑1997. Despite the affidavit, more than five years elapsed, and the court directed that officials re‑inspect the premises to determine if the violations persist, and that any further action be taken only after compliance with Section 53. The court also ordered that no coercive action be taken against the structure until the re‑inspection is completed, effectively staying the corporation’s enforcement measures. Finally, the writ petition and the accompanying interim application were disposed of, with the direction for fresh inspection remaining in force.
Issues considered
- Whether the notice issued under Section 53(i) of the MRTP Act is valid and enforceable against the petitioner.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a stay of coercive or penal action pending verification of alleged violations.
- Whether the court may direct a fresh inspection after a prolonged lapse and base its disposal on the outcome of such inspection.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 — s. 53, 53(i)
Subjects
- MRTP Act
- Section 53
- stay of execution
- municipal corporation
- inspection order
- civil writ petition
- coercive action
Judgment
16-WP-60-2016.odt
rajshree
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.60 OF 2016
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.7710 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.60 OF 2016
Narendra Devji Dedhiya .. Petitioner
V/S
MCGM & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr.Pradeep Thorat a/w Aditi Naikare for the Petitioner.
Mr.P.P. Chawhan a/w Jyoti Mhatre for the MCGM.
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ
DATE : 22nd JUNE 2026
P.C. :
1 The Petition being 8led in the year 2015, call in question the
notice dated 23/03/2015 issued under Section 53(i) of the
Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short,
‘MRTP Act’).
By way of interim order, a relief was sought to restrain the
Respondents from taking coercive action including Penal action
against the Petitioner, in pursuance to the impugned notice issued
RAJSHREE by
KISHOR
MORE
Digitally signed
RAJSHREE
KISHOR MORE
Date:
2026.06.29
10:43:14 +0530
under the provisions of the MRTP Act.
1/3
16-WP-60-2016.odt
2 The Petition is pending for adjudication for a considerable
length of time and we 8nd that, on the very 8rst date when notice
was issued, the Parties were directed to maintain status-quo in
respect of the structures of the Petitioner.
When the Writ Petition was listed on 21/01/2020, a
direction was issued to have fresh inspection of the site and to
produce on record the Inspection Report. In compliance, the
Assistant Engineer (Building & Factories) visited the site on
21/01/2020 and veri8ed the measurements of the structure with
the sanctioned plan dated 04/10/1997 in presence of the
Petitioner and the Respondents. By 8ling an Af8davit in this
Court af8rmed on 21/01/2020, he indicated the violations by
posing it against the approved plan dated 04/10/1997.
In conclusion, the Deponent of the Af8davit stated that
violation in respect of Sr.Nos. 2,3,4 and 5 continue to exist and as
regards violation in respect of Sr.No.6 the loft access was closed
by way of plywood, hence inspection could not be carried out, but
as regards the alleged violation in respect of Sr. No.1 and 7 of the
Schedule, there was no violation.
3 Even with this Af8davit before us, more than 5 years have
lapsed and we are of the view that interest of justice would be
served if we permit of8cials of the Corporation to visit the
structure and if they 8nd that the lacunae still persist, to attract
Section 53 of the MRTP Act and upon such notice being issued,
the Petitioner shall be duty bound to comply or respond to the
2/3
16-WP-60-2016.odt
same if justify that there is no contravention of the approved
plan dated 04/10/1997.
4 With a direction to carry out the said exercise, we dispose of
the Writ Petition, however, till that time, we direct that no
coercive action shall be taken against the said structure, as we
8nd that this order prevented the Corporation from removing the
said structure from the year 2015 itself.
In the wake of disposal of Writ Petition pending Interim
Application also stand disposed of.
[MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.] [BHARATI DANGRE, J.]
3/3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.