Bombay High Court
Om Vishwashanti Chs (Proposed) Through ... vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation Thrugh ... on 20 June, 2025
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-OS:9101-DB
sns 35-oswp-1612-2024-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1612 OF 2024
1. Om Vishwashanti CHS (Proposed), ]
Through his Chief promoter ]
Sadhashiv Nanekar, having his ]
address at Nevatia Municipal Colony, ]
Nevatia Road, Malad (East), ]
Mumbai 400 097.
2. Okhawala Shelter, Builders & ]
Developers, having its office at ]
402, Morya Land Mark II, ]
New Link Road, Andheri West, ]
Mumbai 400 053. ] ...Petitioners.
V/s.
1. Mumbai Municipal Corporation ]
Through Municipal Commissioner, ]
Head office, Mahalika Bhavan ]
Mahapalika Marg, Opp. CSMT, ]
Mumbai - 400 001 ]
2. Executive Engineer (D.P.), ]
P & R Ward, Municipal Head Office, ]
Mahapalika Marg, Fort, ]
Mumbai - 400 001. ]
3. Slum Rehabilitation Authority, ]
Administrative Building, Anant ]
Kanekar Marg, D. Block, BKC, ]
Naupada, Bandra East, ]
Mumbai - 400 051. ]
4. The Additional Municipal Commissioner, ]
BMC Western Suburbs, ]
Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika, ]
Municipal Head Office, Annexe Building, ]
2nd Floor, Mahapalika Marg, Fort, ]
Mumbai - 400 001. ]
Digitally
signed by
SUMEDH
SUMEDH NAMDEO
NAMDEO SONAWANE 1/5
SONAWANE Date:
2025.06.20
19:59:45
+0530
::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2025 03:16:54 :::
sns 35-oswp-1612-2024-J.doc
5. The Assistant Municipal Commissioner, ]
P/North Ward & Competent Authority, ]
Near Liberty Garden, Mamletdarwadi ]
Marg, Malad - West, Mumbai - 400 064. ] ... Respondents
______________________________________
Mr. Yash Tiwari for the Petitioners.
Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. Joel Carlos, Adv. S.V.
Tondwalkar i/by Adv. Komal Punjabi for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5-BMC.
Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) for Respondent No.3-SRA.
Mr. Rohan Kharat, Asst. Engg. (Main) P/N Ward, BMC, present.
_____________________________________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 2nd May, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 20th June, 2025.
Judgment (Per : Kamal Khata, J) :-
1) By this Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the
Petitioners seek the following prayers:
"(b) That by a writ of mandamus, writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other writ, order and direction, the
Order dated 10th January 2024 passed by the
Respondent No. 4, copy of which is at Exhibit 'Q' to this
petition may kindly be quashed and set aside and by the
same order the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 may
kindly be directed to sanction the building proposal
submitted by the Petitioners on 8th January 2024 and
permit the petitioners to commence and complete the
construction of the building in accordance with that
proposal.
(c) By a suitable order interim effect, operation and
implementation of the Order dated 10 January 2024,
copy of which is at Exhibit 'Q' to the petition may be
kindly stayed during the pendency of this petition.
sns 35-oswp-1612-2024-J.doc
2) We heard Mr. Yash Tiwari, learned Advocate for the Petitioners,
Dr. Milind Sathe, learned senior counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and
5-BMC and Mr. Jagdish Aradwad Advocate for the Respondent No.3-Slum
Rehabilitation Authority ('SRA') and perused the papers.
3) A bare perusal of the Order dated 10 th January 2024 demonstrates
that it is well-structured and reasoned and does not exhibit any bias or
perversity. The Respondents have followed the due process of hearing the
parties and thereafter has terminated the developer i.e. Respondent No.2.
4) Upon hearing Mr. Tiwari and perusing the Petition, we enquired
how the Petition was maintainable. The learned Advocate was unable to
demonstrate any right that the slum society or, worse still, even the
Petitioner No.2-developer possessed under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India to file the Petition.
5) Having examined the papers on record, we find that the grounds
raised would require detailed examination of the parties' claims which are
essentially in the nature of a private dispute. The disputed issues
concerning the planning and design of the building, specifically how the
building should or should not be structured, are not the issues to be decided
within the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Such matters squarely fall within the realm of the Brihanmumbai
Municipal Corporation (BMC). Likewise, the developer's contentions
regarding deviations in the plans due to the floor plate or the size of the
sns 35-oswp-1612-2024-J.doc
plot cannot be adjudicated by this Court.
5.1) Furthermore, the slum society has no right to select or
determine the developer, which is a prerogative of the BMC in consultation
with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA).
6) It would be appropriate to observe that, the slum colonies are
creations of slumlords and a direct result of the State's inaction through its
Municipal Corporation and the police, who bear principal responsibility for
their removal as stated by the Single Bench of this Court in Reverend Father,
Peter Paul Fernandes, Parish Priest and Sole Trustee of the Church of St.
Francis Xavier vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1991 Bom 445,
Abdul Majid Vakil Ahmad Patvekari vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority
reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 13719, Abdul Aziz vs. AGRC reported in
2024 SCC OnLine Bom 744 and Bishop John Rodrigues vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1632.
7) Would we be justified in granting this Petition and permitting
these squatters or slum dwellers, who are ex facie illegal occupants and
who have no lawful entitlement to the land in the first place, to dictate the
choice of their developer and impose terms on the State? The answer is an
emphatic negative.
8) We therefore find that, this Petition is a guise filed by the
developer himself under the cover of the slum dwellers designed solely to
continue his appointment. It is evident that, this is in essence a private
sns 35-oswp-1612-2024-J.doc
dispute. The real motive behind filing this Writ Petition is to circumvent the
appropriate legal remedy of filing a civil suit for termination of the contract,
which is a private dispute at its core.
9) We find no justification to interfere with the decision of the
Respondents. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
