Bombay High Court
V Universe Advertisement vs State Of Maharashtra Thr The Sub ... on 12 May, 2026
Digitally signed
by PALLAVI 11-WP-6550-2026.doc
PALLAVI MAHENDRA
MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR
WARGAONKAR Date:
2026.05.12
20:51:42 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6550 OF 2026
V Universe Advertisement ...Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
__________
Mr Pralhad Paranjape a/w SS Bedekar, Shweta More and Swapnil Shanbhag for
the Petitioner.
Mr PP Kakade, AGP a/w Ms Pooja Patil, AGP for respondent/State.
Mr Tejesh Dande a/w Bharat Gadhavi and Sarvesh Deshpande i/byy Mr Tejesh
Dande for the Respondent No.3/NMMC.
Mr Tushar Godave, Sr Clerk, Tax Inspector, NMMC a/w Ms Anusha Shete,
Asst Law Officer, NMMC present.
Mr Bidwai, Dy Engg, MRC-9, Kurla, Mumbai present.
Mr Anuj Jha, partner of Petitioner present.
__________
CORAM : ADVAIT M. SETHNA &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 12 MAY 2026.
(VACATION COURT) P.C.:
1. The Petitioner has moved before Vacation Court on the ground of urgency being the challenge to the letter dated 23.04.2026 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, PWD, calling upon the Petitioner to remove LED hoarding ("Subject Hoarding" for short) installed on Jui Creek Bridge Chitra Sonawane. Page 1 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 20:37:57 ::: 11-WP-6550-2026.doc ("concerned Bridge" for short) on the basis of a decision taken by the Municipal Commissioner to that effect in view of a purported structural audit which has purportedly held the hoarding to be unsafe. According to the Petitioner, it is not heard when such decision was taken. The Petitioner, itself carried out structural audit of the bridge in question in March 2025 and same indicated that the bridge was in good condition.
According to the Petitioner, neither the minutes of the meeting wherein the decision was taken to remove the hoarding nor the purported structural audit report on the basis of which such decision was taken have been provided to the Petitioner. It is, in this backdrop, we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Issue Notice to the respondents. Mr Tejesh Dande waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent No.3/BMC. Mr pp Kakade waives service of notice on behalf of the Respondent/ State.
3. Mr Pralhad Paranjape, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that the said hoarding was installed on the said bridge in June 2025. To this effect, he has relied on a communication dated 05.05.2025 (Exh.C) to the petition. According to the said communication, there is a contractual arrangement between the Petitioner and PWD for a period of 5 years from 05.05.2025, as stated in the said letter. He, further draws our attention to the communication dated 05.03.2025 (Exh.E), which according to him, is a structural audit report Chitra Sonawane. Page 2 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 20:37:57 ::: 11-WP-6550-2026.doc of VJTI, Mumbai, which has tested the structure as well as weight of the subject hoarding and the concerned bridge. The said report also provides that various tests have been conducted in this regard by VJTI, Mumbai, including Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test, Rebound Hammer Test, Core Compression Test with regard to the structure and weight of the subject hoarding and the said bridge.
4. Mr Tejesh Dande, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, has placed on record a communication dated 30.04.2026. By this communication, it appears that in Item No.4 thereof, a structural audit has been recommended for the Municipal limit of Navi Mumbai in respect of the areas covering the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation. A structural audit has been recommended for the entire area. This does not appear to include the subject hoarding and/or the concerned bridge.
5. Mr PP Kakade, the learned AGP representing Respondent/State, has drawn our attention to the impugned communication dated 23.04.2026. According to the said communication, a structural audit has been conducted pursuant to which the subject hoarding was declared as distressed and unsafe, and was recommended to be removed immediately. He has, therefore, supported the impugned communication, in light of the reasons recorded therein.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length Chitra Sonawane. Page 3 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 20:37:57 ::: 11-WP-6550-2026.doc and with their assistance perused the record. It appears that the communication issued by the Municipal Corporation dated 30.04.2026, prima facie would have a bearing on the impugned communication dated 23.04.2026 pursuant to which structural audit would have been conducted as referred to in the impugned communication. However, there is no reference to the specific hoarding and/or the concerned bridge on which the subject hoarding has been placed and continues to be there since June 2025.
7. We have also perused the reports of Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute ("VJTI" for short) which are placed on the record in the petition, as well as the communication dated 05.05.2025 (Exh.C) which indicates contractual agreement between the Petitioner and PWD for a period of 5 years. We have also perused the communication dated 05.05.2025 (Exh.F) addressed to the Petitioner where, the Petitioner inter alia was permitted to start the LED facility after having completed all formalities.
8. Considering the above submissions, and the record before us, we are of the prima facie opinion that a joint inspection be conducted in respect of the said hoarding on the concerned bridge within a period of 2 weeks from today. This would be a joint inspection in the presence of Experts from VJTI.
9. Needless to mention that, all the relevant technical angles including structural and technical feasibility of the hoarding and the bridge shall be Chitra Sonawane. Page 4 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 20:37:57 ::: 11-WP-6550-2026.doc duly carried out by the Experts from VJTI which would also include due consideration of safety parameters.
10. The cost of inspection shall be borne by the Petitioner as fairly agreed.
11. Let Affidavit-in-Reply to the Petition including rejoinder be filed on or before next date and placing on record such report pursuant to the joint inspection be carried out as per our directions, aforementioned.
12. Mr Paranjape, on instructions, states that the Petitioner would furnish an undertaking to this Court that in the event of any untoward incident, the entire responsibility will be borne by the Petitioner alone. Such a statement on instructions is accepted. Let the undertaking be filed by 14.05.2026.
13. By consent, place the Petition for further consideration on 28.05.2026.
14. In light of the above, parties are directed to maintain status-quo until the next date.
15. Stand over to 28 May 2026 for further consideration.
[SANDESH D. PATIL, J] [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] Chitra Sonawane. Page 5 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 20:37:57 :::