Sanjay Sunderlal Soni vs the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sanjay Sunderlal Soni vs the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of by recording the Petitioners' statement that the same proposal would be tendered online to the BP Department within 15 days, with a direction that after such online tender the Municipal Corporation shall decide the proposal within 45 days from the date of receipt, pass a reasoned order, and communicate it to the Petitioners via e-mail within 3 days of passing the order; all contentions of the parties kept open including any bar by law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Municipal Corporation was required to deal with the Petitioners' application tendered physically to the Assistant Engineer (B/F), BMC, C Ward, notwithstanding the Corporation's stand that it ought to have been filed online with the Building Proposal (BP) Department, given that the Petitioners were never informed of that requirement. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court found that the Municipal Corporation needs to put its house in order.

Ratio / Principle

Recording the Petitioners' statement that the same proposal would be tendered online to the BP Department within 15 days, the Court disposed of the petition directing that after such online tender the Municipal Corporation shall decide it within 45 days from receipt, pass a reasoned order, and communicate it to the Petitioners by e-mail within 3 days of passing the order.

Key takeaways

The Court observed in passing that it was only because the Petitioners approached the Court that the Municipal Corporation woke up from its deep slumber.obiter¶19
All contentions of the parties, including any bar by law, were expressly kept open.obiter¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction; Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ.; order dated 22 September 2025) disposed of Writ Petition No. 2941 of 2025 filed by Sanjay Sunderlal Soni and Others against the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai and Others. The Petitioners had tendered an application (printed as dated 23.01.2023, actually 23.01.2024) to the Assistant Engineer, Building and Factory (B/F), BMC, C Ward, which was accepted and acknowledged, and received by the Corporation on 23.01.2024. BMC contended the application should have been filed online with the Building Proposal (BP) Department rather than the BF Department, but conceded that the Petitioners were neither informed that physical copies would not be accepted nor directed to the BP Department. Observing that the Corporation 'needs to put its house in order' and had woken from its 'deep slumber' only upon the Petitioners approaching the Court, the Court recorded the Petitioners' undertaking to tender the proposal online to the BP Department within 15 days and disposed of the petition, directing BMC to decide the proposal within 45 days of receipt, pass a reasoned order, and communicate it by e-mail within 3 days; all contentions, including any bar by law, were kept open.

19-WP-2941-2025.odt

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 2941 OF 2025

Sanjay Sunderlal Soni And Ors. ...Petitioners

Versus

The Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai And Ors. ...Respondents

Mr. Surel Shah, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Tejas Deshmukh, Mr. J. K. Shah, Ms. Namrata Thakur i/b RJ Law, Advocates for the Petitioners. Mr. Amol Meshram, Designated Officer, C Ward a/w Mr. Navneet Jadhav, Assistant Engineer, C Ward are present in the Court. Ms. Vaishali Ugale i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi, Advocates for the Respondents-BMC.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ. DATE : 22^nd SEPTEMBER, 2025.

P.C. :

After hearing the learned Advocate for the Petitioners

and the learned Advocate for the Municipal Corporation, we find

that the Municipal Corporation needs to put its house in order. The Petitioners tendered an Application on 23^rd January, 2023 (actually

dated 23.01.2024), addressed to the Assistant Engineer, Building and Factory (B/F), BMC, C Ward, Shrikant Palekar Road, Mumbai-

400 002. The said Application was duly accepted and an acknowledgment was granted to the Petitioners. The Municipal

Page 1 of 3

Gitalaxmi

19-WP-2941-2025.odt

Corporation received the said Application on 23^rd January, 2024. The learned Advocate submits that the date on the letter should have been of ‘2024’, wrongly printed as ‘2023’.

The learned Advocate for the Bombay Municipal Corporation submits on instructions that the Application should have been filed online and should have been tendered to the Building Proposal (BP) Department, instead of to the BF. It is, however, conceded that neither were the Petitioners informed that the physical copy will not be accepted, nor were they told that they have to approach the BP Department and not the BF Department. Apparently, it appears to us that since the Petitioners have approached this Court, the Municipal Corporation has now woken up from their deep slumber.

The Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits on instructions that the same proposal would be tendered online to the BP Department within 15 days from today, so that there is no technical objection.

In view of the above, by recording the said statement,

this Petition is disposed off with a direction that after the Petitioners tender such proposal online, the Municipal Corporation

Page 2 of 3

Gitalaxmi

19-WP-2941-2025.odt

would decide the same within 45 days from the date of receipt. A reasoned order be passed and the same be communicated to the Petitioners via e-mail within 3 days of the passing of the order.

All contentions of the parties are kept open including if any bar by law.

[ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]

Digitally signed by GITALAXMI GITALAXMI KRISHNA KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2025.09.23 11:31:50 +0530

Page 3 of 3

Gitalaxmi