[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mrs. Shaheen Mohammed Hayat Khan vs The Assistant Commissioner Thr. Their ... on 15 April, 2026
501-IA-1192-2026
Shaheen Khan vs. MCGM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1192 OF 2026
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 302 OF 2024
Mrs. Shaheen Mohammed Hayat Khan ...Applicant
V/s.
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai (MCGM) thr.
The Assistant Commissioner C W Ward & Anr. ...Respondents
______________________________________
Ms. Jennifer Sagayarajan, with Ms. Meera Thakkar, for the Applicant.
Ms. Neeta Jadhav, i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi, for the Respondent-MCGM.
_______________________________________
CORAM : FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.
DATE : 15th APRIL 2026
P.C.:
1. The Applicant has moved a praecipe and sought urgent
circulation which was granted at 3.00 pm.
2. When the matter was called out at 3.00 pm, Ms. Jennifer
Sagayarajan, learned Counsel who appears for the Applicant submits that
pursuant to the order dated 23rd March 2026, her client has received a notice
dated 10th April 2026 (impugned notice) from the Respondent - Corporation
under Section 488 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 (MMC
AMOL
PREMNATH Act) and states that by this notice, the Respondent - Corporation seeks to
JADHAV
carry out demolition of the unauthorized/illegal structure, as more
particularly set out in its earlier notice dated 2nd November 2023 (Section
351 notice) issued under Section 351 of the MMC Act.
-------------------------------------
Order dated 15th April 2026
501-IA-1192-2026
Shaheen Khan vs. MCGM
3. Ms. Sagayarajan further submits that despite the order dated
23rd March 2026, the representatives of the Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai (MCGM) and Maharashtra Housing and Area Development
Authority (MHADA) have not carried out any joint inspection for the
purposes of filing a report pursuant to the order dated 6 th January 2026. She
further submits that in such circumstances, the impugned notice dated 10 th
April 2026 is required to be stayed.
4. In response, Ms. Neeta Jadhav, learned Counsel who appears for
the Respondent - Corporation invites my attention to the order dated 6 th
January 2026 and submits that the notice dated 10 th April 2026 has been
sent pursuant thereto and in compliance thereof which required MCGM to
remove the illegalities/irregularities stated in the Section 351 notice which
have not been removed by the Appellant despite the statement recorded in
paragraph 1 of the said order. She therefore submits that the impugned
notice which is scheduled to be executed tomorrow viz. on 16 th April 2026 at
10.00 am ought not to be stayed.
5. Having considered the oral arguments made by the parties, it
would be profitable to note the directions given by this Court in the order
dated 6th January 2026 which are reproduced hereunder for ready
reference:-
"1. The Advocate for the Appellant submits that they
themselves shall remove all the irregularities/illegalities stated
in the Notice dated 2nd November 2023 issued under section
-------------------------------------
Order dated 15th April 2026
501-IA-1192-2026
Shaheen Khan vs. MCGM
351 by the BMC within a period of two weeks from today.
2. Within two days of removing the same they will inform the
BMC who shall within one week of such intimation inspect the
premises and make a report of the compliance. If the BMC finds
that the illegalities/irregularities stated in notice have not been
removed, they shall proceed to remove them within one week;
without any further notice or intimation to the Appellants. The
BMC shall file a compliance report in the Court within one week
thereafter."
(emphasis supplied)
6. A perusal of the above order clearly reveals that the Respondent
- Corporation is fully empowered to remove the illegalities/irregularities that
are set out in the Section 351 notice which they find, have not been removed
by the Applicant without any further notice or intimation to the Applicant.
Notwithstanding this, the Respondent - Corporation has issued the
impugned notice, a perusal of which reveals that they are only planning to
act in furtherance of the directions given in the said order.
7. Considering the aforesaid, this Court declines to grant any
reliefs in favour of the Applicant. The Respondent - Corporation shall
proceed in furtherance of the impugned notice dated 10 th April 2026. This is
more so since, the Applicant (through her Advocate) had herself agreed
(which statement is recorded in paragraph 1 of the said order dated 6 th
January 2026, and also reproduced above) that all the
illegalities/irregularities that are set out in the Section 351 notice dated 2 nd
November 2023 would be removed by her. By this, she has inter alia
confirmed all the illegalities/irregularities that are pointed out in the Section
-------------------------------------
Order dated 15th April 2026
501-IA-1192-2026
Shaheen Khan vs. MCGM
351 notice and considering this concession already made by her, it would
now not be open to question any of the said illegalities/irregularities.
( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. )
Amol
-------------------------------------
Order dated 15th April 2026
