Dismissed¶33

Om Vishwashanti Chs (Proposed) through His Chief Promoter v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation Thrugh Municipal Commissioner

Bombay HC12 Feb 2025WP/1612/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 226 maintainability; writ of mandamus; quash order 10.01.2024; BMC; SRA; slum rehabilitation; developer termination; Om Vishwashanti CHS; Okhawala Shelter Builders & Developers; slum society no right to select developer; BMC-SRA prerogative; slum dwellers ex facie illegal occupants; private dispute; floor plate; plot size; guise by developer; circumvent civil suit; Article 14; AIR 1991 Bom 445; 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 13719; 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 744; 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1632; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Order dated 10th January 2024 is well-structured and reasoned and exhibits no bias or perversity; the Respondents followed the due process of hearing the parties and thereafter terminated the developer. ¶20

Om Vishwashanti Chs (Proposed) through His Chief… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the Order dated 10th January 2024 passed by Respondent No. 4 (whose quashing was sought, along with sanction of the 8th January 2024 building proposal) suffers from bias or perversity warranting writ interference. +2 more

¶20

Court's answer

¶20

Ratio / Principle

On enquiry into maintainability, neither the slum society nor even Petitioner No. 2 (the developer) could demonstrate any right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India to file the Petition.

¶21

Key takeaways

The disputed issues concerning the planning and design of the building (including deviations due to the floor plate or plot size) are matters of private dispute that fall within the realm of the BMC and are not to be decided under Article 226 jurisdiction.ratio¶22
The developer's contentions regarding deviations in the plans attributable to the floor plate or the size of the plot cannot be adjudicated by this Court.ratio¶25
The slum society has no right to select or determine the developer; that is a prerogative of the BMC in consultation with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA).ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay HC (OOCJ), W.P. No.1612/2024 (Kamal Khata, J.; pronounced 20.06.2025) — Dismissed. Writ petition under Article 226 by a proposed slum society (Om Vishwashanti CHS) and developer (Okhawala Shelter) sought quashing of the Additional Municipal Commissioner's Order dated 10.01.2024 (Exhibit 'Q') terminating the developer and sanction of the proposal submitted on 08.01.2024. The Court found the order well-structured, reasoned and free of bias or perversity, taken after duly hearing the parties; planning/design, floor-plate and plot-size disputes are essentially private matters falling within the BMC's realm, outside Article 226 jurisdiction; the slum society has no right to select the developer, a prerogative of the BMC in consultation with the SRA; slum dwellers, being ex facie illegal occupants without lawful entitlement, cannot dictate the developer or impose terms on the State; the petition was a developer's guise to circumvent a civil suit for contract termination. Reliance placed on AIR 1991 Bom 445; 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 13719; 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 744; 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1632.

¶1

sns 35-oswp-1612-2024-J.doc

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1612 OF 2024

¶4

1.	Om Vishwashanti CHS (Proposed), Through his Chief promoter Sadhashiv Nanekar, having his address at Nevatia Municipal Colony, Nevatia Road, Malad (East), Mumbai 400 097.	] ] ] ] ]
2.	Okhawala Shelter, Builders & Developers, having its office at 402, Morya Land Mark II, New Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai 400 053.	] ] ] ] ]	...Petitioners.
	V/s.
1.	Mumbai Municipal Corporation Through Municipal Commissioner, Head office, Mahalika Bhavan Mahapalika Marg, Opp. CSMT, Mumbai – 400 001	] ] ] ] ]
2.	Executive Engineer (D.P.), P & R Ward, Municipal Head Office, Mahapalika Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.	] ] ] ]
3.	Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Administrative Building, Anant Kanekar Marg, D. Block, BKC, Naupada, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051.	] ] ] ] ]
4.	The Additional Municipal Commissioner, BMC Western Suburbs, Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika, Municipal Head Office, Annexe Building, 2^ndFloor, Mahapalika Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.	] ] ] ] ] ]

¶5

Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH NAMDEO NAMDEO SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2025.06.20 19:59:45 +0530

¶6

1/5

¶7

sns 35-oswp-1612-2024-J.doc

¶8

The Assistant Municipal Commissioner, ] P/North Ward & Competent Authority, ] Near Liberty Garden, Mamletdarwadi ] Marg, Malad – West, Mumbai – 400 064. ] … Respondents

¶9

Mr. Yash Tiwari for the Petitioners.

¶10

Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. Joel Carlos, Adv. S.V. Tondwalkar i/by Adv. Komal Punjabi for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5-BMC. Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) for Respondent No.3-SRA.

¶11

Mr. Rohan Kharat, Asst. Engg. (Main) P/N Ward, BMC, present.

¶12

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ. RESERVED ON : 2^nd May, 2025. PRONOUNCED ON : 20^th June, 2025.

¶13

Judgment (Per : Kamal Khata, J) :-

¶14

By this Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek the following prayers:

¶15

“(b) That by a writ of mandamus, writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order and direction, the Order dated 10th January 2024 passed by the Respondent No. 4, copy of which is at Exhibit ‘Q’ to this petition may kindly be quashed and set aside and by the same order the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 may kindly be directed to sanction the building proposal submitted by the Petitioners on 8th January 2024 and permit the petitioners to commence and complete the construction of the building in accordance with that proposal.

¶16

(c) By a suitable order interim effect, operation and implementation of the Order dated 10 January 2024, copy of which is at Exhibit ‘Q’ to the petition may be kindly stayed during the pendency of this petition.

¶17

2/5

¶18

sns 35-oswp-1612-2024-J.doc

¶19

We heard Mr. Yash Tiwari, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, Dr. Milind Sathe, learned senior counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5-BMC and Mr. Jagdish Aradwad Advocate for the Respondent No.3-Slum Rehabilitation Authority (‘SRA’) and perused the papers.

¶20

A bare perusal of the Order dated 10^th January 2024 demonstrates that it is well-structured and reasoned and does not exhibit any bias or perversity. The Respondents have followed the due process of hearing the parties and thereafter has terminated the developer i.e. Respondent No.2.

¶21

Upon hearing Mr. Tiwari and perusing the Petition, we enquired how the Petition was maintainable. The learned Advocate was unable to demonstrate any right that the slum society or, worse still, even the Petitioner No.2-developer possessed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India to file the Petition.

¶22

Having examined the papers on record, we find that the grounds raised would require detailed examination of the parties’ claims which are essentially in the nature of a private dispute. The disputed issues concerning the planning and design of the building, specifically how the building should or should not be structured, are not the issues to be decided within the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such matters squarely fall within the realm of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC). Likewise, the developer’s contentions regarding deviations in the plans due to the floor plate or the size of the

¶23

3/5

¶24

sns 35-oswp-1612-2024-J.doc

¶25

plot cannot be adjudicated by this Court.

¶26

5.1) Furthermore, the slum society has no right to select or determine the developer, which is a prerogative of the BMC in consultation with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA).

¶27

It would be appropriate to observe that, the slum colonies are creations of slumlords and a direct result of the State's inaction through its Municipal Corporation and the police, who bear principal responsibility for their removal as stated by the Single Bench of this Court in Reverend Father, Peter Paul Fernandes, Parish Priest and Sole Trustee of the Church of St. Francis Xavier vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1991 Bom 445, Abdul Majid Vakil Ahmad Patvekari vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 13719, Abdul Aziz vs. AGRC reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 744 and Bishop John Rodrigues vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1632.

¶28

Would we be justified in granting this Petition and permitting these squatters or slum dwellers, who are ex facie illegal occupants and who have no lawful entitlement to the land in the first place, to dictate the choice of their developer and impose terms on the State? The answer is an emphatic negative.

¶29

We therefore find that, this Petition is a guise filed by the developer himself under the cover of the slum dwellers designed solely to continue his appointment. It is evident that, this is in essence a private

¶30

4/5

¶31

sns 35-oswp-1612-2024-J.doc

¶32

dispute. The real motive behind filing this Writ Petition is to circumvent the appropriate legal remedy of filing a civil suit for termination of the contract, which is a private dispute at its core.

¶33

We find no justification to interfere with the decision of the Respondents. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed.

¶34

(KAMAL KHATA, J.)

¶35

5/5

Om Vishwashanti Chs (Proposed) through His Chief Promoter v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation Thrugh Municipal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Vishwashanti Chs (Proposed) through His Chief Promoter v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation Thrugh Municipal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammad Shahid Ramzan Khan vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority through CEO

Mushtaq N Ghojaria vs Raj Enterprises and 7 Ors.

Manohardevi Berisalsingh Rajput Alias Manoribai vs Vardhan Associates

Murugan Chinnamuthu Devendra vs Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies Mumbai City, Slum Rehabilitation Authority

Mala Ramesh Vaswani vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Athority

Shree Sai Pawan Sra Chs Limited vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through Legal Cell Bhc