Padma Developers Throu. Its Partner Suyoash Shrikant Kelkar vs Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation Throu. Its Muncipal Commissioner and Anr.

¶1

Digitally signed by GAURI AMIT GAURI GAEKWAD AMIT Date: GAEKWAD 2025.09.10 18:17:26 +0530

¶2

18.WP-10461-2025.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.10461 OF 2025

¶5

Padma Developers ….Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation & Anr. ….Respondents ---Mr. Sumit Kothari for the Petitioner. Mr. Sandeep D. Shinde for Respondent No.1.

¶8

---CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ. DATE : 8^th SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

We have heard the learned Advocates for the Petitioner and the Corporation. With their assistance, we have gone through the Petition Paper Book.

¶11

The only grievance of the Petitioner is that he applied for permission to construct a building described as stilt plus 1^st to 8^th floor. In all, the Petitioner desires construction permission for a building with a stilt plus eight floors. However, the impugned decision grants permission only for construction from the stilt plus the 1^st floor to the 7^th floor.

1 of 4

Gauri Gaekwad

18.WP-10461-2025.odt

The Petitioner contends that Section 47 of the

¶16

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 does not permit the Petitioner to challenge the impugned decision since it is not an order. We find that the said submission is misplaced. Section 47 providing for an Appeal reads as under :

¶17

Appeal.

¶18

(1) Any applicant aggrieved by an order granting permission on conditions or refusing permission under section 45 may, within forty days of the date of communication of the order to him, prefer an appeal to the State Government or to an officer appointed by the State Government in this behalf, being an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Secretary to Government; and such appeal shall be made in such manner and accompanied by such fees (if any) as may be prescribed.

¶19

(2) The State Government or the officer so appointed may, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant and the Planning Authority to be heard, by order dismiss the appeal, or allow the appeal by granting permission unconditionally or subject to the conditions as modified.

¶20

As such, the Petitioner is partially aggrieved by the

¶21

order granting permission, albeit, permitting construction only up to the stilt plus 1^st to 7^th floors, thereby refusing permission for the 8^th floor. The Petitioner, on the third day after the passing of the said order dated 26^th July, 2024, made a specific representation to the

2 of 4

Gauri Gaekwad

18.WP-10461-2025.odt

Authorities requesting reconsideration and granting permission for construction up to the 8^th floor. The said representation is still pending.

¶26

Considering the above, we direct the Corporation to take a decision on the said representation and pass a reasoned order within 30 days from today. If the order results in the grant of permission, the matter could be considered as closed. However, if permission for constructing the 8^th floor is refused, a reasoned order shall be served upon the Petitioner by email, within five days from the date of its passing. The email address of the Petitioner is as under :

¶27

[email protected]

¶28

Since the learned Advocate for the Corporation submits, on instructions, that the Petitioner can appear before the Town Planner on 25^th September, 2025 at 12 noon, that the Petitioner is permitted to participate in the said hearing, personally. If required, written notes of submissions may also be tendered, which would be considered by the Authorities while deciding the fate of the representation.

3 of 4

Gauri Gaekwad

18.WP-10461-2025.odt

Since the tendering of a representation is not prescribed

¶33

by law, we are permitting the Corporation to decide the representation based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. This order shall not be cited as a precedent.

¶34

We find it appropriate to note that if the Petitioner’s representation is rejected, the Corporation would intimate the Petitioner of the statutory remedy available to challenge the said order and the Petitioner shall avail of the said remedy, rather than rushing to this Court.

¶35

With the above observations and directions, this

¶36

Petition is disposed off .

¶37

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶38

4 of 4

¶39

Gauri Gaekwad

Padma Developers Throu. Its Partner Suyoash Shrikant Kelkar v. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation Throu. Its Muncipal Commissioner and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padma Developers Throu. Its Partner Suyoash Shrikant Kelkar v. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation Throu. Its Muncipal Commissioner and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Salim Akbar Lalani Solp Prop. Jyoti Builders and Developers vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Sec. Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Harichandra Barku Chaudhari vs the Additional Commissioner Adivasi Vikas (Nashik Division) and Ors.

Vijay Madhukar Yelve and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Prin. Sec. Rural Dev. Dept. and Anr.

Modern Education Society Thr Its Trustee and Anr. vs Manohar Kacharu Sanap

Parvinder Kaur Tirath Singh Madhur Former/Previous Secreary of Ulhasnar Teachers Education Society vs Tribhuvannath Sitaram Tiwari

Chandrakant Krishna Dangale vs State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Higher and Technical Edu. Dept. and Ors.