Disposed¶35

K. Mohan and Co. (Elastics) Pvt. Ltd., through Its Director and Authorized Rep. Ravi Ramesh Samtani v. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai

Bombay HC8 Oct 2025WP/3733/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TAC report modification/correction; C-1 and C-2A categorisation; structural audit; Gr.+1 building; Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay / BMC 'L' Ward; Technical Advisory Committee unanimous conclusion signed by four members; communication 'X-2' by single member; due procedure laid down in law; withdrawal on instructions with liberty and contentions on fresh cause of action kept open; exhibits X-1 and X-2 marked for identification.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of as withdrawn, on instructions, with liberty to raise all contentions (including contentions as regards any fresh cause of action, kept open) and permission to object to the modification of the TAC report at an appropriate stage. ¶35

K. Mohan and Co. (Elastics) Pvt. Ltd., through Its Director and Authorized Rep. Ravi Ramesh Samtani vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the Municipal Corporation followed the due procedure laid down in law in respect of the modification of the TAC report conclusions. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

The Court expected the Corporation to follow the due procedure laid down in law and permitted the Petitioners to raise any objection to the modification of the TAC report at an appropriate stage.

¶30

Key takeaways

The Court observed surprise that the TAC comprising four Senior Members could be said to have committed a mistake when it had categorically recorded the 1st Floor (1st Upper Floor) under C-1 Category and the Ground Floor under C-2A Category, in contrast to 'X-2' indicating only part of the 1st Floor as C-1.obiter¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (O.O.C.J.), W.P. No. 3733 of 2025 — K. Mohan & Co. (Elastics) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay & Ors. (Coram: R.V. Ghuge & A.D. Bhobe, JJ.). During hearing, the BMC tendered a photostat 'purported correction order' of the TAC report dated 11th August 2025 signed by the Executive Engineer (B & F) 'L' Ward (marked 'X-2'); the TAC conclusion (Page 48 of 'X-1'), signed by three members and the Chairman (Deputy Chief Engineer (B.P.) E.S.), had unanimously held the 1st floor of the Gr.+1 building to be C-1 and the Ground floor C-2A, whereas 'X-2' indicated only part of the 1st floor as C-1; the Corporation's Advocate clarified 'X-2' was a communication that all TAC members would assemble to correct the conclusions. The Court observed surprise that a four-member TAC of senior members could be said to have erred, expected the Corporation to follow the due procedure laid down in law, and permitted the Petitioners to object to any modification at an appropriate stage. On the Corporation's stated decision (on instructions) to re-issue the TAC report and re-issue notice, the Writ Petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with all contentions, including any fresh cause of action, kept open.

¶1

908-WP-3733-2025-(OS).odt

¶2

Digitally signed SUNNYANKUSHRAOTHOTE by SUNNYANKUSHRAOTHOTEDate:2025.10.16 09:49:45 +0530

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3733 OF 2025

¶5

K. Mohan & Co. (Elastics) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus

¶6

Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Rajeev Singh i/by Mr. Dharmendra Gupta, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶8

Mr. Amit Yadav, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶9

Ms. Rupali Adhate i/by Ms. Komal Punjabi, Advocate for the Respondent/BMC.

¶10

Mr. Sanjay Dudhate, Asst. Engineer (B & F) ‘L’ Ward, present.

¶11

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

After the hearing in this matter travelled to some length, the learned Advocate for the Corporation sought a pass-over.

¶14

When this matter was called out at 5:20 p.m., the learned Advocate for the Corporation has tendered a photostat copy of a purported correction order of the TAC report dated 11^th August 2025, which is signed by the Executive Engineer (B & F) ‘L’ Ward

¶15

(TAC Member).

¶16

SUNNY THOTE 1 of 4

¶17

908-WP-3733-2025-(OS).odt

¶18

When this matter was heard in the first session, the learned Advocate for the Corporation had tendered a compilation of photographs along with certain documents (Page Nos.1 to 53). The said compilation (5 + 53 Pages) is collectively marked as ‘X-1’ for identification. A photostat copy of the communication from the Executive Engineer referred to above, is marked as ‘X-2’ for identification.

¶19

The TAC report is at Page No.39 of ‘X-1’ and on Page

¶20

No.48, the TAC conclusion indicates as under :-

¶21

“On the basis of structural audit report submitted by both structural consultant & their submission during site visit also visual inspection carried out by TAC members, it is unanimously decided by the TAC that 1^st floor of Gr.+1 upper floor bldg. Falls under C-1 category & Gr. Floor C-2A category.

¶22

Designated Officer ‘L’ Ward office shall take necessary action as per the prevailing policy & guidelines.”

¶23

Three Members of the TAC and one Deputy Chief

¶24

Engineer (B.P.) E.S., Chairman of the TAC, have signed the above conclusion. By the communication ‘X-2’, only one Member seeks to carry out a modification in the conclusion of the TAC. The learned Advocate for the Corporation submits that ‘X-2’ is not a correction

¶25

2 of 4

¶26

SUNNY THOTE

¶27

908-WP-3733-2025-(OS).odt

¶28

order, but a communication that all the Members of the TAC will assemble to carry out a correction in the conclusions of the TAC.

¶29

We are surprised as how the TAC comprising of four Senior Members of the Organization can be said to have committed a mistake, when they had very categorically mentioned that the 1^st Floor (1^st Upper Floor) falls under C-1 Category and the Ground Floor falls under C-2A Category. In contra-distinction, ‘X-2’ submits that only a part of the 1^st Floor will be in the C-1 Category.

¶30

Be that as it may, we would expect the Corporation to follow the due procedure laid down in law. If the Petitioners desire to raise any objections as regards the modification in the TAC report, at an appropriate stage, the Petitioners are permitted to raise his grievance.

¶31

The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits, on instructions, that since the Corporation has now decided to re-issue the TAC report and based on the same, re-issue notice to the Petitioners, this Writ Petition may be disposed off as withdrawn, on instructions. Contentions with regard to any fresh cause of action, be kept open.

¶32

3 of 4

¶33

SUNNY THOTE

¶34

908-WP-3733-2025-(OS).odt

¶35