Avtar Singh Sethi vs State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader (O.S.) — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Avtar Singh Sethi vs State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader (O.S.) — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition No.786 of 2026 and Interim Application (L) No.8881 of 2026 disposed; B.M.C. directed to take action in terms of its speaking order dated 9th September 2025 in accordance with law, subject to any legal impediment and to there being no restraint by the Civil Court, and to consider at the appropriate stage the Petitioner's compliance with the order; expressly no observations on the merits.

Issue for consideration

Attribution of the illegal construction: whether the offending structure was raised by the owner (petitioner) or by the licensee in occupation of the premises. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court records no factual finding on who raised the illegal construction (owner or licensee).

Ratio / Principle

The Corporation is bound to take appropriate action in terms of its order dated 9th September 2025 in accordance with law, subject to any legal impediment, and that order shall be taken to its logical conclusion.

Key takeaways

At the appropriate stage the Corporation shall also consider whether there is failure on the part of the Petitioner to comply with the order, it being the Petitioner's stand that he is willing to abide by the speaking order and has no objection to demolition of the subject structure.ratio¶40
The Corporation can proceed with action only if there is no restraint by the Civil Court; subject to any legal impediment it may take appropriate action in accordance with law.ratio¶46
No observations were made by this Court on the merits; the civil Court is to pass appropriate orders in the suit without being influenced by any observations made by this Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), bench of M.S. Karnik and S.M. Modak, JJ., disposed Writ Petition No.786 of 2026 (Avtar Singh Sethi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.) together with Interim Application (L) No.8881 of 2026 (applicant Aboobakar Abdul Kadar Peringalam Cheriya, addressed by counsel as intervenor). The petitioner, described as owner of the 'offending structure' in K/West Ward, sought directions for action pursuant to the Corporation's speaking order dated 9th September 2025, which had ordered removal of the unauthorized work within 15 days, failing which demolition at the owner's risk and cost with recoverable charges, and warned of punishment under section 475A of the MMC Act (imprisonment not less than one month extendable to one year, plus fine and a daily fine for a continuing offence). Counsel contended the illegal structure was built by the licensee, not the owner, whereas the licensee was alleged to claim the opposite. Declining to record any factual finding on who raised the illegal construction, the Court held the Corporation bound to act upon its 9th September 2025 order in accordance with law, subject to any legal impediment and to there being no restraint by the Civil Court – the licensee having filed a proceeding challenging the Corporation's notice, with the civil suit pending and interim protection granted. The Corporation was additionally directed to consider, at the appropriate stage, any failure by the petitioner to comply, given his professed willingness to abide by the speaking order and lack of objection to demolition. The Court expressly made no observations on the merits and asked the civil court to pass suit orders uninfluenced thereby. No precedent was cited or engaged.

15-WP-786-2026+IA(L)-8881-2026.doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO.786 OF 2026

SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR

Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR

Date: 2026.03.12 17:52:36 +0530

Mr.Avtar Singh Sethi ...Petitioner

V/s.

State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.8881 OF 2026 [NOT ON BOARD : TAKEN ON BOARD]

Aboobakar Abdul Kadar Peringalam Cheriya

...Applicant

In the matter between :-

Mr.Avtar Singh Sethi ...Petitioner

V/s.

State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents

Mr.Jitesh Agarwal a/w Ms.Sunaina Chakravartty, Advocates for Petitioner.

Mr.Amogh Singh a/w Mr.Rahul Arora, Advocates for Applicant. Smt.Poonam Mittal, AGP, for Respondent No.1 – State. Mrs.S.V.Tondawalkar, Advocate for Respondent-BMC. Mr.Mahesh Naik, S.E. (B & F), K/W Ward, BMC.

CORAM : M.S.KARNIK & S. M. MODAK, JJ. DATE : 11^th MARCH 2026

P. C. :-

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

Satish Sangar

1/4

15-WP-786-2026+IA(L)-8881-2026.doc

The Petitioner is the owner of the offending structure in respect of which, the speaking order dated 9^th September 2025 has been passed

by the Corporation. The order passed by the Corporation in conclusion records thus:-

“To treat the notice structure authorized, you must have a permission issued by the competent authority or your structure must reflect in plan sanctioned by the competent authority i.e. B.M.C. or to treat the commercial structure in tolerated category, you must have documentary proofs which can prove that the structure was in existence prior to 01.04.1962 (for commercial structure) fixed by BMC to tolerated unauthorized structure.

Therefore, I pass the following order.

ORDER

You are hereby, directed to remove the said unauthorized work mentioned in the above referred notice within 15 days from the receipt of this order, failing which the noticed structure will be demolished by this department at your risk & cost and the charges of the demolition will be recovered from you and if not paid same will be recovered through assessment charges.

You shall further note that, failing to comply the above order, under section 475A of MMC Act, you are liable to be punished with an imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to one year and with fine which shall not be less than 500% but which may extended to 25,000/- rupees and in the case of continuing offence with a further daily fine which may extend to 500/- rupees for every day during such offence continuous after conviction from the first commission of the offence.

Designated Officer Ward K/west”

Satish Sangar

2/4

15-WP-786-2026+IA(L)-8881-2026.doc

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the premises in question are in occupation of the licensee. The illegal structure has not been constructed by the owner but by the licensee. Learned counsel submitted that the licensee is now saying that the illegal structure has been constructed by the owner. This according to the Petitioner is not the correct position and therefore, the Petition is filed for appropriate directions for taking necessary action against the said illegal construction pursuant to the order dated 9^th September 2025 passed by the Corporation.

It is not possible for us to record any factual finding on the question as to who has raised the illegal construction. Suffice it to observe that the Corporation is bound to take appropriate action in terms of the order dated 9^th September 2025 in accordance with law and subject to any legal impediment. The order dated 9^th September 2025 shall obviously be taken to its logical conclusion. The Corporation shall at appropriate stage also consider whether there is failure on the part of the Petitioner to comply with the order as it is the stand of the Petitioner that he is willing to abide by the speaking order

and has no objection for the demolition of the subject structure.

Satish Sangar

3/4

15-WP-786-2026+IA(L)-8881-2026.doc

Shri.Singh appeared on behalf of the intervenor to submit that

the licensee has filed appropriate proceeding challenging the said notice issued by the Corporation and the civil suit is pending in which interim protection is granted. In such view of the matter, subject to any legal impediment, the Corporation may take appropriate action in accordance with law. Obviously, the Corporation can proceed only if there is no restraint by the Civil Court from taking action.

It is made clear that we have not made any observations about the merits, in respect of the contentions and the civil Court shall obviously pass appropriate orders in the suit without being influenced by any observations made by this Court.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

Interim Application also stands disposed of.

(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

Satish Sangar

4/4