Glenda Ignatius Dsilva vs State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

Glenda Ignatius Dsilva vs State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted; the petition was disposed of with all contentions open and the petitioner was given liberty to file appropriate proceedings at a later stage, if the occasion so arises.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to submit the papers and proceedings showing action taken on the petitioner's complaints and to demolish the unlawful and unauthorised construction by Respondent Nos. 5, 5(a) and 5(b) on CTS No. 1954 to 1964, village Kolekalyan, Santacruz (East), Vakola, Mumbai. +1 more

Court's answer

The respondent-Corporation has already issued the Section 354-A notice to the owner/occupier and taken action; the notice shall be taken to its logical conclusion subject to any legal impediment, and therefore the purpose for which the petition was filed has been worked out.

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is disposed of keeping all the contentions open.

Key takeaways

The Section 354-A notice is the subject matter of challenge in a separate proceeding, Writ Petition (L) No. 4951 of 2025, which will be heard and decided on its own merits and in accordance with law.obiter¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (OOCJ), WRIT PETITION NO. 1646 OF 2025 — Glenda Ignatius Dilva v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.; coram M. S. Karnik and S. M. Modak, JJ.; dated 5 March 2026. Petitioner sought, under Article 226 of the Constitution, a writ of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (including the respondent-Corporation) to submit papers and proceedings showing action taken on her complaints, to demolish unlawful and unauthorised construction by Respondent Nos. 5, 5(a) and 5(b), to survey/inspect the site, and to have illegal encroachment removed from CTS No. 1954 to 1964, village Kolekalyan, Santacruz (East), Vakola, Mumbai – 400 055, besides interim restraint on further construction/encroachment. During pendency, counsel placed on record a notice under Section 354-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 issued by the Corporation to the owner/occupier. The Court held that the Corporation had already acted, that the notice would be taken to its logical conclusion subject to legal impediment, and that the purpose of the petition was worked out; it disposed of the petition keeping all contentions open, with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings at a later stage if the occasion arises. The notice is separately challenged in Writ Petition (L) No. 4951 of 2025, to be decided on its own merits. No precedent was cited or relied upon.

46-wp 1646-25.doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 1646 OF 2025

Glenda Ignatius Dilva … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents

Mr. V. N. Gupta for the Petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Malvankar, AGP for the Respondent-State. Mrs. S. V. Tonwalkar for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. Mr. Anuj Pande for Respondent Nos.5(a) & 5(b).

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND S. M. MODAK, JJ. DATED : 5 th MARCH, 2026.

P.C. :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for

respondent-Corporation and learned counsel for respondent Nos.5(a) and 5(b).

The present petition seeks the following substantial reliefs: -

“(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus, writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and directing the Respondent No.3 and 4 to submit the papers and proceedings from their concerned office regarding the action taken by them on the complaints made by the Petitioner and further direct the said authorities to demolish the unlawful and unauthorised construction done by Respondent No.5, 5(a) and 5(b) on plot bearing

Amk 1/3

46-wp 1646-25.doc

CTS No. 1954 to 1964 at village Kolekalyan, Santacruz (East), Vakola, Mumbai – 400 055 without any sanction or permission from the concerned authorities.

(b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus, writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to carry out survey/inspection of the site and after survey/inspection of the site direct Respondent Nos.5(a) and 5(b) to remove illegal and unlawful encroachment from the property of the petitioner or pass such orders deem fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court to remove all encroachment from the property of this petitioner.

(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondent Nos.5(a) and 5(b), their agents, servants or any of their representatives from carrying out any further illegal construction on plot bearing CTS No. 1954 to 1964 at village Kolekalyan, Santacruz (East), Vakola, Mumbai – 400 055 and further also the said respondent Nos.5(a) and 5(b), their agents, servants or any of their representatives be restrained from further encroaching on the property of the petitioner in any means.”

During the pendency of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record a copy of the notice issued under Section 354-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 to the owner/occupier. Thus, the Corporation has already issued the notice and taken action. The notice shall obviously be taken to its logical conclusion subject to legal impediment if any. The purpose for which the petition was filed has been worked out. Liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings at a

Amk 2/3

46-wp 1646-25.doc

later stage, if the occasion so arises.

We have been informed by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.5(a) and 5(b) that the said notice is the subject matter of challenge by a separate proceeding filed in Writ Petition (L) No. 4951 of 2025. Obviously the same shall be heard and decided on its own merits and in accordance with law.

So far as the present petition is concerned, the same is disposed of

by keeping all the contentions open.

(S. M. MODAK, J.)

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

3/3

Amk