JAGDEEP SINGH WADHWAversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI

                                                             33-wp 689-26.doc

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                       WRIT PETITION NO. 689 OF 2026

Jagdeep Singh Wadhwa                                      … Petitioner
       Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.             ... Respondents
                     __________________________

Mr. Ajeet Manwani a/w. Faisal Vora for the Petitioner.
Mrs. S. V. Tondwalkar for the Respondent No.1-BMC.
                       __________________________

                                        CORAM      : M. S. KARNIK AND
                                                     S. M. MODAK, JJ.
                                        DATED      : 4th MARCH, 2026.

P.C. :

1.       Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.       Learned counsel for the petitioner claims to be a senior citizen

suffering from heart ailments due to sleepless nights, stress and respiratory

problems caused by smoke, strong odour, continuous noise from the

operations of the business conducted by respondent No.2-Cheelizza Pizza

India Pvt. Ltd. in the Shop No.6, Ground Floor, Chembur Fairlawn CHS Ltd,

S. T. Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Respondent No.1 is Municipal Corporation,

which has power to issue licenses, supervise the operations of business

premises, restaurants, bakery and hotels and control the activities carried

on by these business places to ensure compliance of clean, healthy,

hygienic and pollution free conditions of the residents in Mumbai.



 Amk                                                                  1/3
                                                                  33-wp 689-26.doc

Respondent No.2 is a private limited company which is conducting

business of cooking, baking and supplying Pizzas and other food items,

other bakery items to the customers visiting their premises and also

catering to the online food service providers like Swiggy, Zomato, Uber and

other food chains of food service providers.

3.     This writ petition seeks following substantial reliefs:-

       “(a) That this Hon’ble Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of
       Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other
       Writ, Direction or Order, directing the Respondent No.1 to
       suspend the licenses issued to the Respondent No.2 for
       conducting restaurant & food business.
       (b) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct
       Respondent No.1 to immediately take action against the
       Respondent No.2 by closing/shutting down/sealing the
       business premises, forthwith.
       (c) That this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to issue
       appropriate direction to the Respondent No.1 to enforce the
       time of running of business as per law.
       (d) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct
       payment of Rs.10,00,000/- as exemplary costs by the
       Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner for having caused
       harassment, inconvenience and financial loss to the Petitioner.”

4.     Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite several

complaints made to the Respondent No.1, some of which are dated 6 th

February, 2024, 24th June, 2024, 15th January, 2025 and 1st July, 2025, the

respondent No.1 has failed to take any action. It is submitted that an

inspection was carried out as directed by the Assistant Commissioner of

concerned Ward of the shop but no further action was taken.


 Amk                                                                      2/3
                                                              33-wp 689-26.doc

5.     We have perused the copy of email dated 15 th January, 2025,

addressed by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 regarding violations of

safety and pollution control standards by respondent No.2 and request for

immediate action.      We are not issuing a notice to respondent No.2

considering the nature of order we propose to pass.

6.     In the facts and circumstances of the case, we permit the petitioner

to make a comprehensive representation to the Assistant Commissioner of

the concerned Ward, where the shop of respondent No.2 is situated, within

a period of two weeks from today.         We are of the opinion that the

grievance of the petitioner, who is senior citizen residing on the first floor

needs to be examined carefully and looked into by the respondent No.2. In

such view of the matter, the Assistant Commissioner of the concerned Ward

is requested to examine the representation made by the petitioner and take

appropriate action in accordance with law within a period of six weeks

from the date of communication of this order. An opportunity obviously

will be given to the respondent No.2, if any adverse action is proposed to

be taken against the respondent No.2.

7.     Keeping all contentions open, the petition is disposed of.



(S. M. MODAK, J.)                                         (M. S. KARNIK, J.)




 Amk                                                                  3/3