Bombay High Court
Ghansham Singh Narang vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation on 13 May, 2026
25-WP(L)-16926-2026 (OS).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 16926 OF 2026
Ghansham Singh Narang ...Petitioner
Versus
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation ...Respondent
__________
Adv. Rohan Cama, Suraj Iyer, Harvardhan Melanta a/w Kavita Sharma, i/b
Ganesh and Co,. for the Petitioner.
Adv. Jyoti Mhatre, i/b Adv. Komal Punjabi, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 -
BMC.
Shri. Aakash Patil, J.E (B&F) H/W ward.
__________
CORAM : ADVAIT M. SETHNA &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 13 MAY 2026 (VACATION COURT) P.C.:
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This petition is moved on the ground of extreme urgency, it being stated that the Respondents have already disconnected the electricity and water supply to the Petitioner's residential building pursuant to the impugned orders classifying the building as C-1 category. The Petitioner is a super senior citizen aged over 80 years and is facing an imminent threat of eviction, demolition, and further coercive action.
3. Issue Notice to the Respondents returnable on 25 May 2026. Mayur Page 1 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 21:14:37 :::
25-WP(L)-16926-2026 (OS).doc
4. Ms. Jyoti Mhatre, waives service for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
5. Mr. Cama, learned counsel for the Petitioner, has strenuously urged that the impugned notice (Exhibit "B" to the Petition) classifying the building structure as C-1 is itself contrary to law. He has also referred to the order of the Technical Advisory Committee, which, according to him, is legally unsustainable and suffers from several infirmities.
6. Ms. Jyoti Mhatre, learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation, submitted that several other persons residing in the said building have already vacated the premises considering the present condition of the building. She has gainfully relied upon the report of the Technology Advisory Committee meeting held on 23 March 2026.
7. It is not disputed that the Petitioner in the present case is a senior citizen aged about 80 years.
8. Mr. Cama, learned counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the Petitioner has been residing in the said premises since about 1975.
9. The only consideration that weighs with this Court at this stage is purely humanitarian. We do not wish to delve into the merits of the matter or the legality and validity of the action taken by the Respondents at this stage. However, considering that the Petitioner is a senior citizen, he ought not to be displaced suddenly, as the same would cause great inconvenience to him. Only for this reason, and again making it clear that we have not Mayur Page 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 21:14:37 ::: 25-WP(L)-16926-2026 (OS).doc expressed any opinion on the merits, and purely on humanitarian considerations, we deem it appropriate to adjourn the proceedings to 25 May 2026.
10. In the meantime, the water and electricity supply shall be restored in the said premises of the Petitioner by the Respondents.
11. Learned counsel for the Respondent has reiterated that the said building is in a highly dilapidated condition. Considering the situation in its entirety, we deem it appropriate to place the proceedings on 25 May 2026 for further consideration. Until then, the Petitioner may be permitted to reside in the said premises, with the water and electricity supply being restored, purely as a temporary measure.
12. In our view, in the interest of justice, the senior citizen-Petitioner should, in the meantime, gets a breather to make arrangements to shift to alternate premises, considering that his safety is equally paramount.
13. Mr. Cama, at this stage, on instructions, submitted that an undertaking would be furnished to this Court by 15 May 2026, categorically recording that the Petitioner is ready and willing to reside in the said premises until the next date at his own risk and subject to the consequences arising therefrom, particularly in view of the objections and concerns raised by the Respondent-Corporation regarding the dilapidated condition of the building. Also that the Respondent - Corporation and/or its officer shall not be made responsible in any manner whatsoever in this Mayur Page 3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 21:14:37 ::: 25-WP(L)-16926-2026 (OS).doc regard. Such Undertaking shall positively be filed before this Court by 15 May 2026.
14. Stand over to 25 May 2026, on which date the Court shall pass further appropriate orders.
15. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
[SANDESH D. PATIL, J] [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] Mayur Page 4 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2026 21:14:37 :::