Balu Ganpat Desai vs the State of Maharashtra through the Honble Secretary Urban Development Department

a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ in the nature of

¶20

Digitally signed SEEMA by SEEMAKSHITIJYELKAR KSHITIJ Date: YELKAR 2026.04.0210:46:42 +0530

¶21

1/4

¶22

Seema

¶23

wp 4136 OF 2024.doc

¶24

Mandamus commanding/directing the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to initiate appropriate steps and proceedings against Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and to forthwith take action against the Respondent No. 9 and further to direct the Respondent No. 9 to forthwith remove the unauthorized construction / modification / alteration and / or additions carried out by him in Flat No.A-105 situated at Ambika tower CHS Ltd., Jijamata Chawk, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400092 and further to recover the costs incurred from the Respondent No.9 as contemplated under the provisions of the MRTP Act.

¶25

The learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that appropriate notice has been issued against the offending structure. Respondent No. 9 approached the City Civil Court. The City Civil Court directed the Corporation to pass the speaking order. Accordingly, the speaking order after hearing the concerned parties was passed on 12.06.2025. The order reads thus :-

¶26

“You are hereby directed to remove/restore the notice work shown in notice sketch within 15 Days from the receipt of this letter, failing which the same will be demolished by this office staff at your risk, cost & consequences.

¶27

You shall further note that on failure to comply with the notice action issued under section MRTP Act are liable

¶28

2/4

¶29

Seema

¶30

wp 4136 OF 2024.doc

¶31

to be punished with imprisonment under section 475-A MMC Act for a term which shall be not be less than one month but which may extend to one year and with a fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees but which may extend to Twenty Five Thousand Rupees and in the case of continuous offence with a further daily fine which may extend to five hundreds rupees.

¶32

In such view of the matter, the Corporation has to proceed against the unauthorized construction.

¶33

Affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondent No. 9 is taken on record by extending the time to file the same till today. Affidavit in reply filed by the Corporation is taken on record. Para No. 7 of the reply filed by the Corporation lists the following illegalities committed by Respondent No. 9 reads thus :-

¶34

(i) Entry constructed to living room window wall by removing the brick masonry wall;

¶35

(ii) Common brick masonry wall of bedroom was partially demolished and two new additional brick masonry walls were constructed; and

¶36

(iii) Right side toilet entry was found to have been changed beyond approved plan dated 12.03.2010.

¶37

The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 9 submitted that an application for regularization has been filed. The grievance of the Respondent No. 9 is that, in respect of the flat which is in his

¶38

3/4

¶39

Seema

¶40

wp 4136 OF 2024.doc

¶41

possession, the changes/alterations made can be regularized. Accordingly, the Respondent No. 9 assures that within a period of two weeks from today, he would file an application for regularization to the Municipal Corporation.

¶42

If an application for regularization is filed, the same shall be obviously dealt with in accordance with law by the Corporation expeditiously and in any case within a period of twelve weeks from the date of filing of such application. The Respondent No. 9 to file such application within the period of two weeks. If decision on application is adverse to the interest of the Respondent No. 9, then RespondentCorporation must act on the notice which has been issued against Respondent No. 9, in accordance with law subject to any legal impediment.

¶43

The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(S. M. MODAK, J.)

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

4/4

Seema

Balu Ganpat Desai v. the State of Maharashtra through the Honble Secretary Urban Development Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balu Ganpat Desai v. the State of Maharashtra through the Honble Secretary Urban Development Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ethics Infra Development Pvt. Ltd. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shreekrishna Chaitanya Enterprises vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nanded City Rahivasi Sangh Thru. J. M. Dhumal vs the Pune Municipal Corporation Thru. Commissioner and Ors.

Aaditya Satish Mohole vs Reserve Bank of India

Kshitija Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs the Assistant Assessor and Collector E Ward Office

Mr Hemant Ramnath Andherkar vs State of Maharashtra