Bombay High Court
DHIRENDRA MANUBHAI MANIARversusMUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ( MMRDA) AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- MILIND N JADHAV
Holding
The petition is disposed as the planning authority must await the final order in the MCA or trial court suit before acting on the impugned order.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an ad‑interim order of the trial court, while a Miscellaneous Civil Application (MCA) was pending before the district court, which had already granted interim relief to the petitioner. The High Court noted that the planning authority should not act on the impugned order until the final decision in the MCA or the trial court suit is rendered. It directed the district court to decide the MCA expeditiously, including the planning authority as a party, and ordered that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner’s structures. Since the petition no longer served any purpose, the Court allowed the petition to be disposed. The petition was consequently dismissed without any further orders.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of the district court's interim relief on the planning authority's duty to act on the trial court's ad‑interim order?
Subjects
- writ petition
- interim order
- MCA
- planning authority
- district court
- disposal
Judgment
909. CIVIL WP-6535-26.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6535 OF 2026
Dhirendra Manubhai Maniar .. Petitioner
Versus
M.M.R.D.A. & Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Harshit Kabali a/w Mr. Sarabjot Singh & Ms. Pratishtha Shukla,
Advocates for Petitioner
Mr. Akshay P. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No. 1
Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. G.P. a/w Ms. Vaishali Nimbalkar, AGP for
Respondent No. 2 - State
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : MAY 8, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Kabali, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Shinde,
learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Patel, Addl. GP for
Respondent No. 2 - State.
2. Considering the fact that MCA has been filed by Petitioner
against the ad-interim order passed by the learned Trial Court and in
that MCA, learned District Court has already granted ad-interim relief
to Petitioner, Planning Authority will not act on the impugned order
which is the subject matter of the present Petition.
3. Needless to state that the impugned order shall be subject to the
final order that will be passed either in the MCA or by learned Trial
Court in the suit proceedings which are filed by Petitioner.
1 of 2
909. CIVIL WP-6535-26.odt
4. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
5. Liberty to the Planning Authority to approach the Trial Court or
the District Court for appropriate orders. Mr. Shinde informs the
Court that MCA proceedings before the District Court will be heard on
13.05.2026. Concerned District Court is directed by this Court to
decide the said proceedings expeditiously after hearing all the parting
including the Planning Authority. In that view of the matter, for the
present no coercive steps be taken against the subject structures of
Petitioner.
6. In view of the above, no purpose will be served by keeping the
Petition pending in this Court.
7. Liberty to apply in case of any exigency or difficulty.
8. Petition is disposed.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally
signed by
RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.05.11
17:38:15
+0530
2 of 2
Checking your session…