[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Poonam And Patel Construction Limited vs State Of Maharashtra Through Principal ... on 30 January, 2026
Author: B. P. Colabawalla
Bench: B. P. Colabawalla
2026:BHC-OS:2671-DB
5.wp.1108.2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1108 OF 2025
Poonam and Patel Construction
Limited & Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr.Subhash Jha a/w Shakeeb Shaikh, Aftab
Digitally
Diamondwala, Trusti Talekar, Summet Upadhyay,
UTKARSH
signed by
UTKARSH
KAKASAHEB
Chetan Gogawale, Hetal Jain i/b Diamondwala and Co.,
KAKASAHEB BHALERAO
BHALERAO Date:
2026.01.30
Advocates for the Petitioners in WP/1108/2025 &
18:01:15
+0530 WP/3624/2025.
Ms.Vaishali Chaudhari, Addl.G.P., for Respondent Nos.1 to
4 in WP/1108/2025.
Mr.Suraj Gupte, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in
WP/3624/2025.
Mr.Prakhar Tandon a/w Aarushi Yadav, Aatish Tayade
i/b Ravleen Sabharwal, Advocates for Respondent No.5/SRA
in WP/3624/2025 and for the Applicant in IA(L)/7912/2025 in
WP/1108/2025.
Mr.Preet Chheda i/b Sayali Sawant, Advocates for
Respondent No.7 in WP/3624/2025 and for the Applicant in
IA(L)/7192/2025 in WP/1108/2025.
Mr.Manan Bhindora a/w Ninad Thikekar i/b SHS
Chambers, Advocate for Respondent No.8 in WP/3624/2025.
Ms.Ajnali Ghuge, Advocate for Respondent No.6/MCGM.
Page 1 of 5
JANUARY 30, 2026
Utkarsh
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2026 22:35:27 :::
5.wp.1108.2025.doc
CORAM :B. P. COLABAWALLA &
M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 30, 2026
P. C.
1. The above matter has been placed before this Bench
because of an order passed by another Division Bench consisting of
G.S.Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ. dated 16th December 2025
2. Before the Bench headed by Justice G.S. Kulkarni, a Writ
Petition was filed by one Poonam and Patel Construction Limited and
Another assailing a communication dated 28th January 2025 addressed
by Respondent No.3 therein (the Collector) to Respondent No.5 (the
Slum Rehabilitation Authority). On 16 th December 2025 when the
matter had come up before the said Bench, a preliminary objection was
taken by the Respondents that the Petitioner had earlier approached
this Court in Writ Petition No.1108 of 2025 (the present Writ Petition)
which came to be adjudicated by judgment and order dated 3 rd April
2025 passed by the Bench consisting A. S. Chandurkar (as his Lordship
then was) & M.M. Sathaye, JJ. In this Writ Petition [WP No.1108 of
2025] also a communication dated 28 th January 2025 was assailed.
According to the Petitioner, namely, Poonam and Patel Construction
JANUARY 30, 2026
Utkarsh
5.wp.1108.2025.doc
Limited, the communication assailed in the present Writ Petition [WP
No.1108 of 2025] and one assailed in Writ Petition No.3624 of 2025
were not one and the same and were different communications. It is in
this light that the Division Bench of G.S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.
deemed it appropriate to direct the Petitioner to obtain a clarification of
the order dated 3rd April 2025. This is how the matter has come up
before us today.
4. When we perused the record, we find that the
communication dated 28th January 2025 assailed in Writ Petition
No.1108 of 2025 (the present Writ Petition) was a communication
issued by Respondent No.4 (Superintendent, City Survey and Land
Records). As far as communication dated 28 th January 2025 assailed in
Writ Petition No.3624 of 2025 is concerned (Exhibit QQ therein), it is a
communication addressed by the Collector (Respondent No.3) to the
Slum Rehabilitation Authority (Respondent No.5). In fact, the serial
numbers of the two communications are also distinct and different. It is
therefore clear that the communication dated 28 th January 2025
assailed in Writ Petition No.3624 of 2025 is a different communication
from the one assailed in Writ Petition No.1108 of 2025.
JANUARY 30, 2026
Utkarsh
5.wp.1108.2025.doc
5. The learned counsel appearing for Shri Sai Markandeshwar
Nagar Co-operative Housing Society (Prop.), Worli, Mumbai
(Respondent No.7 in WP No.3624 of 2025) submitted that even the
communication assailed in Writ Petition No.3624 of 2025 is nothing but
an internal communication and therefore the subsequent Writ Petition
cannot be entertained for the reasons that are set out in the order
passed on 3rd April 2025 in Writ Petition No.1108 of 2025. He further
submitted that the communication assailed in Writ Petition No.3624 of
2025 was in fact brought on record by the Petitioner by filing an
affidavit-in-rejoinder in Writ Petition No.1108 of 2025. Once this is the
case, on the principles of constructive res judicata, the Petitioner cannot
assail the communication dated 28th January 2025 addressed by the
Collector (Respondent No.3) to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority
(Respondent No.5) in Writ Petition No.3624 of 2025.
6. We are afraid we are unable to accept the aforesaid
contention. As can be seen from the order dated 3 rd April 2025 to which
one of us (M.M. Sathaye,J.) was a party, there was absolutely no
consideration of the communication dated 28 th January 2025 addressed
by the Collector to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. What was only
considered were certain communications including a communication
JANUARY 30, 2026
Utkarsh
5.wp.1108.2025.doc
dated 28th January 2025 issued by the Superintendent, City Survey and
Land Records. It is therefore futile to suggest that the Petitioner cannot
now assail the communication dated 28 th January 2025 addressed by
the Collector to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.
7. As far as the argument of the learned counsel that even the
communication dated 28th January 2025 assailed in Writ Petition
No.3624 of 2025 is an internal communication, we do not give any
opinion on that aspect of the matter. It is free for Respondent No.7 to
canvass this argument when Writ Petition No.3624 of 2025 is taken up.
If this argument is canvassed, it is for the Court hearing Writ Petition
No.3624 of 2025 to decide whether the communication assailed therein
is an internal communication and what would be the effect thereof.
8. With the above clarification, the above Praecipe is
accordingly disposed of.
9. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/
Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by
fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[M.M. SATHAYE, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]
JANUARY 30, 2026
Utkarsh
