Disposed¶18

Mahendrsingh Narayansingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Feb 2026PIL/9/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL; Nagpur Bench, Bombay High Court; former Corporator; conversion of land reserved for public utility; commercial purpose; Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966; Urban Development Department; Mantralaya; treated as representation; decide within eight weeks; communicate decision within two weeks; no costs; disposed; Kilor and Wakode, JJ.; 2026.

What did the court decide?

PIL disposed of by treating it as the petitioner's representation to respondent no.1 (Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai), who is to decide it within eight weeks considering all grounds and provisions relied upon, and communicate the decision within two weeks; petitioner to furnish copies of the PIL and order within one week; no order as to costs. ¶18

Mahendrsingh Narayansingh Rathod vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the conversion of land reserved for public utility into commercial purpose is illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

¶13

Court's answer

The Court recorded that the challenge to the conversion of the reserved land has not yet been dealt with by the competent authority.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The Public Interest Litigation was disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 (Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai) to treat the PIL as the petitioner's representation and decide it within a stipulated period of eight weeks from receipt of the order.

¶14

Key takeaways

Respondent no.1 was directed to consider all the grounds and provisions relied upon by the petitioner while deciding the representation, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of such decision.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public Interest Litigation (2026:BHC-NAG:1927-DB, Nagpur Bench, decided 05.02.2026, Kilor & Wakode, JJ.) filed by a former Corporator challenging the conversion of land reserved for public utility into commercial use as illegal and violative of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The Court noted the challenge had not yet been dealt with by the competent authority and, without adjudicating the merits, disposed of the PIL with a direction to respondent no.1 (Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai) to treat the PIL as the petitioner's representation and decide it within eight weeks, considering all grounds and provisions relied upon, and to communicate the decision within two weeks. Petitioner to supply copies within one week. No order as to costs.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:1927-DB

¶2

119-PIL-09-=2026.odt 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 09 OF 2026

¶5

Mahendrasingh Naryanasingh Rathod

¶6

vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, and others.

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶9

Mr. Shubhankar Phadnis, Advocate for petitioner. Ms T. Khan, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 3.

¶10

CORAM :- ANIL S. KILOR and RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATE :- 5^th FEBRUARY, 2026.

¶11

Heard Mr. Shubhankar Phadnis, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

The petitioner, who is a former Corporator, seeks to challenge to the conversion of the land reserved for public utility into the commercial purpose.

¶13

The contention is that the aforesaid conversion is illegal and is in violation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. However, the fact remains that the aforesaid challenge has not yet dealt with by the competent authority.

¶14

In that view of the matter, we dispose of the Public Interest Litigation with a direction to the respondent nos 1- Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, to treat the present Public Interest Litigation as a representation of the petitioner and decide the same within a stipulated period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this Court.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to produce the copy of the PIL as well as the copy of the order passed today within a period of one week from today, before Resp.no.1

¶16

119-PIL-09-=2026.odt 2

¶17

The respondent no.1 is directed to consider all the grounds and the provisions relied upon by the petitioner while taking decision on the representation. Decision taken thereupon shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of such decision.

¶18

The Public Interest Litigation is disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.

¶19

( RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

¶20

Andurkar.

¶21

Signed by: Jayant S. Andurkar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 05/02/2026 19:19:09

Mahendrsingh Narayansingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendrsingh Narayansingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Varshatai W/O Sanjay Bagade vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Law and Judiciary, Mumbai and Ors.

Prakruti Foundation, Thr. Its President, Deepak Bharatsingh Dixit vs Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi and Others

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar National Asso. of Engineers, Nagpur Thr. President, Methaji S. Bhaladhare vs the State of Maha., Thr. Principal Secretary, Higher and Tech. Education Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Sachin D Tiwari vs Union of India Thru. Secretary and Ors.

Mohammed Ismail Abdul Khalik vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. Thr. the Chief Secretary and Ors.

Varun Dev Jha and Ors. vs Securities and Exchange Board of India and Ors.

Mozam Ali Mir vs the State Election Commission, Maharashtra

Shrikant Kankekar vs Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Mahendra S/O. Murlidhar Dhobe vs Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur and Others

Varshatai W/O Sanjay Bagade vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Law and Judiciary, Mumbai and Ors.

Pooja Dilip Gaikwad and Others vs Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University Thr. Vice Chancellor, Nagpur and Ors.

Shyam Bhaiyyaji Deotale vs Special Recovery and Sale Officer, Jan Kalyan Nagari Sahkari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Tumsar and Ors.

Lakhan S/O Madhukar Rathod and Another vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Rural Devpt. Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Sarfaraz Yusuf Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Ors.