Wasim Abdul Kadir Kadiri and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Principal Sec and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Jul 2025WP/10093/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wasim Abdul Kadir Kadiri v. State of Maharashtra, WP 10093/2025, Bombay HC Kolhapur Bench, 12-09-2025 — unauthorized construction / Toilet Block demolition, Gaothan land, Village Nandgaon, Taluka Khed, District Ratnagiri; Collector directed to inquire and act per law within eight weeks; petition disposed of. Counsel: Sumit Kothari & Pradeep Salgar (Petitioners); T. J. Kapre AGP (State). No statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 3 - Collector to address the Petitioner's complaint, with liberty to issue notice to Respondent No. 4, hear both sides and take action in accordance with law against the Toilet Block if unauthorized, within eight weeks from 29 September 2025; writ petition otherwise disposed of. ¶¶22

Wasim Abdul Kadir Kadiri and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Principal Sec and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 should initiate demolition action in respect of the allegedly unauthorized Toilet Block constructed by Respondent No. 4 adjoining House No. 18 and the Tin Sheet Shed on Gaothan land adjoining House No. 16 at Village Nandgaon, Taluka Khed, District Ratnagiri.

¶¶15

Court's answer

The Court directed Respondent No. 3 - Collector to address the Petitioner's complaint regarding the alleged unauthorized construction.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioner is to remain present before Respondent No. 3 - Collector on 29 September 2025 at 11:00 a.m. along with a copy of the order, and the Collector may issue notice to Respondent No. 4 before initiating any action for demolition.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

It is open to the Collector to hear the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 and then take action in accordance with law against the Toilet Block, if it is unauthorized.ratio¶¶21
The appropriate action is to be taken within a period of eight weeks from 29 September 2025.ratio¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 10093 of 2025 (Bombay High Court, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur; Karnik & Deshmukh, JJ.; decided 12-09-2025). Petitioners sought a direction to Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 to demolish an allegedly unauthorized Toilet Block constructed by Respondent No. 4 adjoining House No. 18, and a Tin Sheet Shed on Gaothan land adjoining House No. 16, Village Nandgaon, Taluka Khed, District Ratnagiri. The Court did not itself decide the legality of the construction; it directed Respondent No. 3 (Collector) to address the complaint, fixed the Petitioner's appearance before the Collector on 29-09-2025 at 11:00 a.m., permitted notice to Respondent No. 4 before any demolition action, left the Collector free to hear both sides and act in accordance with law if the Toilet Block is unauthorized, set an eight-week timeline from 29-09-2025, and disposed of the petition.

¶1

11-WP-10093-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

¶3

Digitally signed by TALLE TALLE SHUBHAM SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO ASHOKRAO Date: 2025.09.12 19:45:41 +0530

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 10093 OF 2025

¶6

Wasim Abdul Kadir Kadiri And Anr … Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra And Ors … Respondents

¶9

Mr. Sumit Kothari & Pradeep Salgar for the Petitioners. Ms. T. J. Kapre AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶10

——————

¶11

Coram : M. S. Karnik & Sharmila U. Deshmukh, JJ.

¶12

Date : September 12, 2025.

¶13

P. C. :

¶14

1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶15

2. It is contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 should initiate an action of demolition in respect of unauthorized construction of Toilet Blocks constructed by the Respondent No. 4 adjoining to House No. 18 and Tin Sheet Shed on the Gaothan land adjoining House No. 16 situated at Village: Nandgaon, Taluka: Khed, District: Ratnagiri.

¶16

1 of 2

¶17

Shubham Talle

¶18

11-WP-10093-2025.doc

¶19

3. According to learned Counsel for the Petitioner, construction of the Toilet Block is unauthorized and illegal. We direct to Respondent No. 3- Collector to address the complaint of the Petitioner.

¶20

4. The Petitioner shall remain present before Respondent No. 3- Collector on 29^th September, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. along with copy of this order. The Respondent No. 3-Collector may issue notice to the Respondent No. 4 before initiating any action for demolition. It is the stand of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 4 has already undertaken to demolish the unauthorized Toilet Block.

¶21

5. It is open for the Collector to hear the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 and then proceed to take action in accordance with law against Toilet Block, if the same is unauthorized. The appropriate action should be taken within a period of eight weeks from 29^th September, 2025.

¶22

6. Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶23

[ Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. ] [ M. S. Karnik, J. ]

¶24

2 of 2

¶25

Shubham Talle

Wasim Abdul Kadir Kadiri and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Principal Sec and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wasim Abdul Kadir Kadiri and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Principal Sec and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shila Raghunath Pawar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Secretary School Education and Sports Department and Ors.

Krishna Rukmana Kadgaonkar vs Kushal Gaikwad

Chetan Dhanykumar Narwade vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Tahsildar Shirol

Pratap Maruti Shinde and Anr. vs the State of Maharshtra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors.

Urmila Khemji Gambhire vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Department of School Education and Sport

Smt. Nilam Arun Dhere and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary School Education Dept. and Ors.