Disposed¶19

Shiv Chandra Shetty v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Bombay HC22 Jan 2026WP/3107/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization application rejection; amalgamation and addition/alteration of shop Nos. 21 to 28; online proposal through licensed Surveyor; non-submission/tendering of requisite documents; Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai; service of rejection orders within five working days; liberty to file appeal; excuse of time spent in writ petition for limitation; Bombay High Court OOCJ; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Corporation directed to serve all rejection orders passed against the Petitioner within five working days; Petitioner at liberty to file an Appeal as permissible in law; time spent in this Court from 3 July 2025 (date of filing) till this order to be excused if limitation arises. ¶19

Shiv Chandra Shetty vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner's application/proposals for regularization (amalgamation and addition/alteration of shop Nos. 21 to 28) were rejected for want of requisite documents, and what remedy remains available to the Petitioner. +1 more

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The Corporation is directed to serve all the rejection orders that it has passed against the Petitioner, within five working days.

¶18

Key takeaways

Thereafter, the Petitioner is at liberty to avail of the remedy of filing an Appeal as is permissible in law.ratio¶18
Time spent by the Petitioner in this Court from the filing of the Petition on 3 July 2025 till the passing of this order shall be excused if the issue of limitation arises.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Civil Writ Petition No. 3107 of 2025 - Shiv Chandra Shetty v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & ors. (Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge & Abhay J. Mantri, JJ.; 22 January 2026). The Petitioner's application for regularization, and subsequent online proposals filed through a licensed Surveyor for amalgamation and addition/alteration of shop Nos. 21 to 28 on the ground floor of the existing building, were rejected for non-tendering of requisite documents; the Corporation stated that no application of the Petitioner remains pending. The Court directed the Corporation to serve all rejection orders passed against the Petitioner within five working days, held the Petitioner at liberty to file an appeal as permissible in law, and excused the time spent in the writ petition (filed 3 July 2025) till the passing of the order if the issue of limitation arises. Petition disposed of.

¶1

906.os.wp.3107.2025.odt

¶2

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

¶3

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3107 OF 2025

¶4

Shiv Chandra Shetty ….Petitioner

¶5

Digitally signed by VINA VINA ARVIND ARVIND KHADPE KHADPE Date: 2026.01.23 17:09:09 +0530

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & ors. ….Respondents

¶8

Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude with Ms. Babita Kesharwani i/b. K. Amol for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Rutuja Bodake, for the Respondent – Corporation.

¶10

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : 22^th JANUARY, 2026

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

We have briefly heard the learned Advocates for the Petitioner and the Respondent Corporation.

¶13

The learned Advocate for the Corporation submits that because the Petitioner did not tender the relevant documents despite being repeatedly made aware of the requirement to furnish the same, the Application for regularization has been rejected. It is an online process. Thereafter, the Petitioner once again submitted an online proposal through the licensed Surveyor for the proposed amalgamation, and addition / altercation of shop Nos.21 to 28 on the ground floor of the existing building. The proposal has been

¶14

Vina Khadpe 1 of 2

¶15

906.os.wp.3107.2025.odt

¶16

referred back to the licensed Surveyor for compliance of tendering the requisite documents. Such documents were not submitted. The Petitioner again submitted a proposal on 29^th May 2023, without the requisite documents. Therefore, the proposal was rejected.

¶17

The learned Advocate for the Corporation submits that as on date, no Application of the Petitioner is pending.

¶18

We direct the Corporation to serve all the rejection orders that they have passed against the Petitioner, within five working days from today. Thereafter, the Petitioner is at liberty to avail of a remedy of filing an Appeal as is permissible in law. Time spent by the Petitioner in this Court from the date of the filing of this Petition on 3^rd July 2025, till the passing of this order, shall be excused if the issue of limitation arises.

¶19

In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off.

¶20

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

¶21

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶22

2 of 2

¶23

Vina Khadpe

Shiv Chandra Shetty v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Chandra Shetty v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sushil Assan Sukhwani vs the Union of India

Diamond Bakery a Partnership Firm vs the Municipal Commission

Pantan Infra Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Director Manmohan Tandon vs State of Maharashtra through Rera Appellate Tribunal

Apurva Shishir Diwanji vs Idbi Bank Limited and Anr.

Anil Kumar Somarulal Vishwakarma vs Municipal Corporation of Greater

Sagir Ahmed Abdul Rauf Qureshi vs the Municipal Commissioner