[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Swapnil Dilip Patil vs Jhalak Construction Thr Their Partners ... on 29 April, 2026
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2026:BHC-AS:20511-DB
sbw ASWP-14342-2024-AW-IA-568-2025(1)(1).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 14342 OF 2024
1. Jhalak Constructions ]
Through their partners ]
Naresh Harumal Wadhwani ]
Occu:Business ]
R/at: 17, Block No.C9, Dev ]
Samaj Road, Ulhasnagar ]
Thane 421 004. ]
2. Sagar Mukesh Wadhwani ]
Occu:Business ]
R/at: 17, Block No.C9 ]
Dev Samaj Road, Ulhasnagar ]
Thane -421004. ]
... Petitioners
V/s.
1. Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation ]
Through its Municipal Commissioner ]
Ulhasnagar-3, Taluka-Kalyan ]
District Thane - 421 003. ]
2. The Town Planner ]
Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation ]
Town Planning Department ]
First Floor, Municipal Corporation ]
Centre, Ulhasnagar-3 ]
Taluka:Kalyan,District-Thane-421004 ]
3. State of Maharashtra ]
Through Urban Development ]
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai ]
served through the office of the ]
Government Pleader, Appellate Side ]
Bombay High Court, Mumbai. ]
... Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 568 OF 2025
SANDHYA Digitally signed by
1/14
SANDHYA BHAGU
BHAGU WADHWA
Date: 2026.04.29
WADHWA 19:55:03 +0530
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 03:14:07 :::
sbw ASWP-14342-2024-AW-IA-568-2025(1)(1).doc
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.14342 OF 2024
Adv. Swapnil Dilip Patil ]
Age : 39 years ]
R/at : Nana Bhoir Niwas, 4/1 ]
opp. C-Block 617, Deepak Darbar ]
Netaji Chowk, Ulhasnagar-421004. ] ... Applicant
In the matter between
Jhalak Constructions ]
Through their partners ]
1. Naresh Harumal Wadhwani ]
Occu:Business ]
R/at: 17, Block No.C9, Dev ]
Samaj Road, Ulhasnagar ]
Thane 421 004. ]
2. Sagar Mukesh Wadhwani ]
Occu:Business ]
R/at: 17, Block No.C9 ]
Dev Samaj Road, Ulhasnagar ]
Thane -421004. ]
... Petitioners
V/s.
1. Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation ]
Through its Municipal Commissioner ]
Ulhasnagar-3, Taluka-Kalyan ]
District Thane - 421 003. ]
2. The Town Planner ]
Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation ]
Town Planning Department ]
First Floor, Municipal Corporation ]
Centre, Ulhasnagar-3 ]
Taluka:Kalyan,District-Thane-421004 ]
3. State of Maharashtra ]
Through Urban Development ]
2/14
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 03:14:07 :::
sbw ASWP-14342-2024-AW-IA-568-2025(1)(1).doc
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai ]
served through the office of the ]
Government Pleader, Appellate Side ]
Bombay High Court, Mumbai. ] ... Respondents
______________________________________
Mr. Girish Agrawal a/w Ms. Chitra Danekar, Mr. Karan Singh for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Vijay D. Patil, Senior Advocate, i/by Mr. Yogesh Patil for the Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
Smt. Leena Patil "B" Panel counsel for the Respondent No.3-State.
Ms. Minal Chandnani a/w Mr. Rajesh Ranglani for the Intervener in
IA/568/2025.
________________________________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 24th April, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 29th April, 2026.
Judgment (Per : Kamal Khata, J) :-
1) This Petition takes an exception to the impugned Order dated 16 th
August 2024, passed by the Respondent No.1, the Ulhasnagar Municipal
Corporation (UMC). By the said impugned Order, the UMC has revoked the
development permission granted to the Petitioners on the subject property
under the provisions of Section 51 of the Maharashtra Regional Town
Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) and called upon the Petitioners to remove
the construction, failing which the Corporation will do the same.
2) Mr. Girish Agrawal, learned Advocate for the Petitioners submitted
that, the Petitioners have purchased the subject property being Barrack
No.2112, Room Nos. 1 to 4 and additional area Plot No. 345 (Part), bearing
sbw ASWP-14342-2024-AW-IA-568-2025(1)(1).doc
CTS No. 27918 to 27922, 27925, 30678, Sheet No. 73 to 74, Ulhasnagar - 5
admeasuring 1004.5 sq. meters from Shri Chanderlal Parsram Jeswani, Shri
Jaidev Parsram Jeswani and Smt. Ganga Inderlal Jeswani by executing a
duly registered Deed of Conveyance dated 28th May 2019.
2.1) On 25th November, 2019, the Petitioners made an application
for development of the subject property under Section 45 of the MRTP Act.
A Public Notice was also displayed by the Respondent No.1-Corporation
inviting objections of the public at large with a view to ascertain any
objection of persons aggrieved by the said development. The Petitioners
paid scrutiny fees as per Regulation 2.2 of the Unified Development Control
and Promotion Regulations for Maharashtra, for scrutinizing documents,
verifying the subject property as well as to ascertain whether the subject
property is affected by any reservation or importantly whether the subject
property can cause obstruction in the Development Plan of the Town
Planning Authority.
2.2) Upon a scrutiny being carried out by the UMC by its letter
dated 30th January, 2020, the Petitioners were directed to pay development
charges to the tune of Rs 4,79,950/-. The Petitioners deposited the
development charges as well as executed a Release Deed relinquishing an
area admeasuring 345.52 sq. meters in favour of Respondent No.1-
Corporation and registered it on 29 th November, 2020. The said area was
required for the proposed DP Road as per the Development Plan. On 3 rd
sbw ASWP-14342-2024-AW-IA-568-2025(1)(1).doc
December, 2020 the Petitioners were granted development permission with
a sanctioned plan to construct building up to 7 floors. On 28 th January,
2021 the Petitioners applied for Revised building permission. The same
procedure was adopted and the Petitioners again deposited Scrutiny Fees
for similar verification. The site was visited and measurement was carried
out in presence of the Commissioner of the Corporation.
2.3) On 1st October, 2021 a report was prepared by the Junior
Engineer Town Planner and Commissioner of Corporation, wherein it was
recorded that, the subject property was unaffected by the 24-meter as well
as 36-meter DP Road. By a Revised Development Permission dated 2 nd
November, 2021, the Petitioners were granted permission to construct up to
16 floors. A second Release Deed dated 8 th December, 2020 was executed
and registered whereby an additional area of 41.16 sq. meters was released
since it was required for the DP Road as claimed by the Corporation. The
project was registered with the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory
Authority and a Registration Certificate dated 22 nd December 2021 was
granted under Section 5 r/w Rule 6(a) of the said Act/Rules. The project
was registered by the name 'Jhalak Paradise' and was to be completed on or
before 31st of December 2025. The Petitioners obtained the Plinth Level
Certificate on 9th December, 2022 and presently the building is constructed
up to 14 floors.
2.4) Mr. Agrawal, learned Advocate for the Petitioners strenuously
sbw ASWP-14342-2024-AW-IA-568-2025(1)(1).doc
contends that, the Corporation issued Stop Work Notice dated 12 th
September, 2023 at the instance of a complaint made by an Advocate and
another politically connected person. He submits that, the Stop Work Notice
was issued without affording any hearing to the Petitioners. Aggrieved by
the Stop Work Notice, the Petitioners preferred a Writ Petition before this
Court. Pursuant to the Court's directions, while disposing of the Petition, a
fresh Notice was issued by the Corporation on 3 rd May, 2024 and the
Petitioners were permitted to file their reply and heard on the same. He
submitted that, despite the Orders of the Court, no Order was passed by the
Respondent No.1-Corporation on the said show cause notice.
2.5) He submitted that, subsequently the Respondent No.1-
Corporation issued another Show Cause Notice under Section 51 of the
MRTP Act stating that the subject property was affected by the 36-meter as
well as the 24-meter DP Road and further alleged that the permission was
obtained by misleading them. The Corporation namely Respondent No.1
passed the impugned Order dated 16th August, 2024 whereby the
development permission granted to the Petitioners was revoked under the
provisions of Section 51 of the MRTP Act, 1966.
2.6) Learned Advocate Mr. Agrawal submitted that, the Petitioners
have diligently followed all the procedures of the Corporation and have
obtained the development permissions. They have also relinquished an area
of 386.68 sq. meters from the subject property by executing and registering
sbw ASWP-14342-2024-AW-IA-568-2025(1)(1).doc
two Release Deeds in favour of the Corporation. Pursuant to the permission
granted to the Petitioners, the building construction is completed up to 14
floors which is 80% of the entire construction under the permission.
2.7) He submitted that, the Show Cause Notice has failed to set out
all the grounds necessitating action against the Petitioners and consequently
the said Show Cause Notice is rendered nugatory. In view of the above Mr.
Agrawal submits that the entire action smacks of malafide and deserves to
be set aside.
3) Per Contra, Mr. Vijay Patil, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that, Mr. Lalit Khobragade, the Assistant
Director, Town Planning, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation has filed an
Affidavit dated 21st November, 2024. He invited our attention to paragraph
6 of the Affidavit which categorically states that, the Municipal
Commissioner Shri Aziz Shaikh had taken note of the misconduct on the
part of Shri Mule, who was responsible for granting permission to the
Petitioners and relieved him from the post of the Town Planner by an Order
dated 9th May 2024. The said decision was taken after the subject plot was
inspected and a plan was prepared by super imposing the sanction
development plan with the subject plot and the DP Roads at the actual site.
This exercise revealed that, 80% of the subject plot was affected by the
proposed DP Roads. Consequently, Mr. Mule could not have granted the
permissions to the Petitioners.
sbw ASWP-14342-2024-AW-IA-568-2025(1)(1).doc
3.1) Mr. Patil further submitted that, the Order dated 16 th August,
2024 was passed after issuing a fresh Show Cause Notice to the Petitioners
and after considering the reply as well as affording a hearing to the
Petitioners. He therefore submitted that the Petitioners cannot contend that,
the Petitioners were not heard. He submitted that, the Petitioners and their
Architect had obtained permissions from the UMC by tendering incorrect
material and plans thereby misleading the Corporation. Mr. Patil submitted
that, the Petitioners who have played fraud on the Corporation are not
entitled to any equitable relief. Equally the concerned Officer of the UMC
who was responsible and failed to consider the documents before granting
the permission deserved to be appropriately punished. He submitted that
the action had already been taken against the concerned Officer in that
regard. In that view of the matter, he submitted that, the Petition deserves
to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
4) We have heard both Mr. Girish Agrawal, learned Advocate for the
Petitioners, Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well
as Ms. Chandnani, learned Advocate for the Intervener and have carefully
perused all the documents on record.
5) We find due merit in the submissions of Mr. Patil. A party who has
mislead the Authority by tendering incorrect documents with a view to
mislead the Corporation cannot get advantage of his own wrong. It is
settled law that, fraud vitiates all Orders. Therefore the permissions granted
sbw ASWP-14342-2024-AW-IA-568-2025(1)(1).doc
to the Petitioners stand vitiated and are non-est in the eyes of law. A party
attempting to play a fraud on the Authorities cannot be permitted to take
advantage of his own wrong. The contention of Mr. Agrawal that, the
Petitioners have constructed 80% of the building has no merit at all. His
contention that, the Petitioners have expended over Rs. 17 crores on the
said project also cannot be countenanced. The investment of a Developer or
by flat purchasers of said property cannot be a ground for regularizing an
illegality or irregularity.
6) The Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v/s.
UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3767; has entrusted the responsibility on all Courts to take stern action
against all illegalities and irregularities. In paragraph No.20, has held as
under :-
"20. In the ultimate analysis, we are of the opinion
that construction(s) put up in violation of or
deviation from the building plan approved by the
local authority and the constructions which are
audaciously put up without any building planning
approval, cannot be encouraged. Each and every
construction must be made scrupulously following
and strictly adhering to the Rules. In the event of any
violation being brought to the notice of the Courts, it
has to be curtailed with iron hands and any lenience
afforded to them would amount to showing
misplaced sympathy. Delay in directing rectification of
sbw ASWP-14342-2024-AW-IA-568-2025(1)(1).doc
illegalities, administrative failure, regulatory
inefficiency, cost of construction and investment,
negligence and laxity on the part of the authorities
concerned in performing their obligation(s) under the
Act, cannot be used as a shield to defend action taken
against the illegal/unauthorized constructions. That
apart, the State Governments often seek to enrich
themselves through the process of regularisation by
condoning/ratifying the violations and illegalities.
The State is unmindful that this gain is insignificant
compared to the long-term damage it causes to the
orderly urban development and irreversible adverse
impact on the environment. Hence, regularization
schemes must be brought out only in exceptional
circumstances and as a onetime measure for
residential houses after a detailed survey and
considering the nature of land, fertility, usage, impact
on the environment, availability and distribution of
resources, proximity to water bodies/rivers and larger
public interest. Unauthorised constructions, apart
from posing a threat to the life of the occupants and
the citizens living nearby, also have an effect on
resources like electricity, ground water and access to
roads, which are primarily designed to be made
available in orderly development and authorized
activities. Master plan or the zonal development
cannot be just individual centric but also must be
devised keeping in mind the larger interest of the
public and the environment. Unless the
administration is streamlined and the persons
entrusted with the implementation of the act are held
sbw ASWP-14342-2024-AW-IA-568-2025(1)(1).doc
accountable for their failure in performing statutory
obligations, violations of this nature would go
unchecked and become more rampant. If the officials
are let scot-free, they will be emboldened and would
continue to turn a nelson's eye to all the illegalities
resulting in derailment of all planned projects and
pollution, disorderly traffic, security risks, etc."
6.1) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kaniz Ahmed Vs.
Sabuddin and Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 995, in paragraph
No.7 has held as under:
"7. Thus, the Courts must adopt a strict approach
while dealing with cases of illegal construction and
should not readily engage themselves in judicial
regularisation of buildings erected without requisite
permissions of the competent authority. The need for
maintaining such a firm stance emanates not only
from inviolable duty cast upon the Courts to uphold
the rule of law, rather such judicial restraint gains
more force in order to facilitate the well-being of all
concerned. The law ought not to come to rescue of
those who flout its rigours as allowing the same might
result in flourishing the culture of impunity. Put
otherwise, if the law were to protect the ones who
endeavour to disregard it, the same would lead to
undermine the deterrent effect of laws, which is the
cornerstone of a just and orderly society.[See: Ashok
Malhotra v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, W.P. (c)
No. 10233 of 2024 (Delhi High Court)]"
7) In the present case we find that, the Petitioners contended that, as
sbw ASWP-14342-2024-AW-IA-568-2025(1)(1).doc
per the report dated 1st October, 2021 the subject property was unaffected
by 24-meter as well as 36-meter DP Roads. Reliance was placed upon the
report to submit that, the permissions were obtained based on this report.
Diametrically opposite to the aforesaid contention the Petitioners contend
that, the subject plot was affected by the DP Roads and consequently the
Petitioners voluntarily released an area of 386.68 square meters in favour of
the Corporation.
8) Prima facie it appears that the Petitioners have attempted to
approbate and reprobate. It appears that, the Petitioners were all
throughout aware that the subject property was affected by DP Roads on
either side of the subject property. It further appears that, with the help of
their Architect, they have presented misleading documents to the
Corporation to obtain the development permissions. In that case, the
Petitioners are not entitled to any sympathy or leniency. Such sympathy or
leniency if afforded would be entirely misplaced. Therefore, although
permissions were obtained from the UMC, they would, in our view, be null
and void, having been procured by misrepresentation and by the
submission of incorrect material and documents, rendering the entire
structure illegal. The Supreme Court in unambiguous terms have called
upon the Court to not get swayed away by misplaced sympathies and take
stern action against persons like the Petitioners who attempt to play a fraud
not only on the State, its Authorities but also the Courts.
sbw ASWP-14342-2024-AW-IA-568-2025(1)(1).doc
9) The attempt to set aside the Show Cause Notice on the ground
that all the grounds were not set out in the same for the Petitioners to
appropriately deal with the same, is yet another attempt in our view to
delay and defeat the inevitable result. Though this ground may be relevant,
directing issuance of a fresh show cause notice and hearing will in no way
change the result. As noted earlier, the Petitioners have obtained building
permission by misrepresenting facts and documents before the UMC.
10) A plain reading of the Order would show that, no such ground
was taken by the Petitioners before the concerned Authority. It clearly
appears to be an afterthought. The Courts have consistently held that, a
party coming with unclean hands deserves to be thrown out at the very first
stage and does not deserve any relief either in equity or in law.
11) In the present case, we find that, the Petitioners have clearly
mislead the Corporation and has obtained permissions fraudulently. It is
evident that, even the concerned Officer/(s) of the UMC have failed in his
duty to verify the documents before granting the permissions.
12) The Municipal Authorities are the guardians of the City and its
planned development. The Municipal Commissioner heading these
Corporations owe a duty to the citizens and the State for the planned
development and consequently removal of all unauthorized or illegal
constructions. The State owes the citizens, a strict, stern and appropriate
action against all the erring or delinquent Officers who have polluted the
sbw ASWP-14342-2024-AW-IA-568-2025(1)(1).doc
entire system. Their removal is imperative. The system has to be cleansed.
13) The illegality has been nipped in the bud. The Commissioner
UMC, has taken appropriate action against the erring officer, particularly
since the entire construction is illegal.
14) The Court must play its role in uprooting such illegalities.
Following the principles of law laid down in UP Avas Nigam (supra) and
Kaniz Ahmed (supra), we see no reason to accede to the request made by
the Petitioners Advocate. The request is accordingly rejected.
15) The UMC shall take necessary action as per the Notice in
accordance with law.
16) Petition is dismissed.
17) Having considered our view in the matter, Mr. Agrawal, learned
Advocate for the Petitioners sought a stay for a period of four weeks to
enable him to approach the Supreme Court to test the Order.
18) We find no reason to stay the operation and implementation of the
Order.
19) Place the matter for compliance on 17th June, 2026.
20) All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this Order.
21) In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, Interim Application
No.568 of 2025 does not survive and is accordingly disposed off.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.).
