Bombay High Court
Hitesh Lalitkumar Pipalia vs Municipal Corporation Of Gr Mumbai on 22 May, 2026
502-WP(L)-18046-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 18046 OF 2026
Hitesh Lalitkumar Pipalia and Ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and ... Respondents
Ors.
--------------------
Mr. Mandar Soman i/b Priyanka Surve, for the Petitioners.
Ms. Shailaja Kadam, Ms. Lalita Kardila, Ms. Shalini Thomas, Ms. Shailaja
Shetty, Ms. Tejaswini Tamore, Ms. Rita Tandar, Mr. Hitesh Pipilia, Mr.
Ashok Kardile, Ms. Shubhangi Keni, Ms. Ujwala Shivkar, Petitioners,
present in Court.
Ms. Anjali Ghuge, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
--------------------
CORAM : GAUTAM A. ANKHAD &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 22nd MAY, 2026.
(VACATION COURT)
P.C. :
1. Mr. Mandar Soman, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submits that the matter is extremely urgent as the Petitioners are senior citizens residing in Wings A to D of Sion Kamgar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Sion (East), Mumbai - 400 022. He fairly states that a notice dated 25th November 2025 under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 was issued by Respondent nos.1 and 2 and that the challenge raised by the Petitioners to the said notice has failed before all Manisha 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 22/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 01:31:42 ::: 502-WP(L)-18046-2026.doc judicial forums, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
2. Mr. Soman submits that Wings A, B, C and D of the Society have been categorized as "C-1" structures and that Respondent nos.1 and 2 have recently appointed a contractor to undertake demolition of the said buildings. He submits that the Petitioners are ready and willing to vacate the premises, but considering that most of the Petitioners are senior citizens, some reasonable time be granted to make necessary arrangements for relocation. It is submitted that immediate eviction would cause serious hardship and prejudice to the Petitioners.
3. Ms. Anjali Ghuge, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent nos.1 and 2, opposes the grant of interim protection on the ground that Special Leave Petition No. 8354 of 2026 challenging the demolition action is dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27th February 2026. She submits that sufficient time has already been available to the Petitioners to make alternate arrangements and no further indulgence ought to be granted.
4. Upon instructions, Mr. Soman states that the Petitioners are willing to file affidavits incorporating the following undertakings:- Manisha 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 22/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 01:31:42 :::
502-WP(L)-18046-2026.doc
(i) that the Petitioners shall vacate and hand over peaceful possession of their respective premises within a period of eight weeks;
(ii) that the Petitioners shall not seek any further extension of time beyond the aforesaid period;
(iii) that the Petitioners shall not claim any equities or rely upon the present order in any other proceedings; and
(iv) that the Petitioners shall continue to occupy the premises during the extended period entirely at their own risk and consequences.
5. Having regard to the advanced age of Petitioners and the statement made on their behalf that they are willing to file the affidavit we grant indulgence to enable them to make alternate arrangements. The relief granted is on humanitarian considerations and shall not be construed as diluting the findings recorded in the proceedings challenging the notice issued under Section 354 of the Act. Respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 shall not take coercive steps against the Petitioners until 17 th July 2026. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are also directed to restore the water supply to the Petitioner- Society during the aforesaid period.
6. List the matter on 22nd July 2026.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) Manisha 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 22/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 01:31:42 :::