[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Deepika Jitendra Bhaskar vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 13 March, 2026
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2026:BHC-OS:6586-DB
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
Digitally signed
SUNNY
by SUNNY
ANKUSHRAO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ANKUSHRAO THOTE
THOTE Date:
2026.03.13
20:34:52 +0530
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4795 OF 2025
1. Crestline Developer LLP,
Having address at Unit No.B1, Ground
Floor, Wadala Udyog Bhavan, Wadala East,
Mumbai - 400 031 ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai,
Head Office Mahanagarpalika Marg,
Mumbai 400 001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner (Estate),
Office of the Assistant Commissioner
(Estate), Head Office, Mahanagarpalika
Marg, Mumbai 400 001
3. The Administrative Officer (Society),
Office of the Assistant Commissioner
(Estate), Head Office, Mahanagarpalika
Marg, Mumbai 400 001
4. The Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai, Head Office, Mahanagarpalika
Marg, Mumbai 400 001
5. Atmiya Future Venture Pvt. Ltd.,
Having its registered office at Flat No. 10,
Pravin Mansion, Kamla Nehru Road 3,
BLK-9, Kandivali West, Mumbai - 400 067.
6. Sant Rohidas Co-op Housing Society Ltd.
having its address at Plot bearing C.S. No.
597, 597A, 597B, T.P.S. IV, Mahim
Division, J.B. Road,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400 025.
7. The Divisional Joint Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division,
Mumbai
Sunny Thote ...1
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 22:42:00 :::
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
8. State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary,
Co-operation Department, Mantralaya, Fort,
Mumbai - 400 032 ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 38451 OF 2025
Deepika Jitendra Bhaskar,
Aged - 50 years, Occupation: Housewife,
Residing at: Room No. 4, Ground Floor,
Karapurkar House J.B. Road,
Mumbai 400 025 ....Petitioner
Versus
[1] Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai,
Through its Commissioner,
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation,
Head Quarter, Mahanagarpalika Marg,
Mumbai 400 001.
[2] Atmiya Future Venture Pvt. Ltd.,
Having its registered office at : Flat No. 10,
Pravin Mansion, Kamla Nehru Road 3,
BLK-9, Kandivali West, Mumbai - 400 067.
[3] Buicon Consultants LLP
Having its registered office at : 118/12,
Shree Pragati Soc., Mahavir Nagar,
Kandivali West, Mumbai 400 067.
[4] Sant Rohidas CHS Ltd.,
Having its address at Plot bearing C.S.
No.597, 597A, 597B, T.P.S. IV, Mahim
Division, J.B. Road,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025.
[5] State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Co-operative Department, Mantralaya, Fort,
Mumbai 400 032. ... Respondents
...
Sunny Thote ...2
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 22:42:00 :::
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
Mr.Sanjiv Sawant a/w Mr.Samir Suryawanshi, Mr.Aadil Parasampuria,
Mr.Pankaj Kode and Ms.Bhakti Wast for the Petitioner in WP No. 4795 of
2025.
Dr. Suman Bhardwaj (appearing through VC) a/w Ms.Rutuja S. Gholap
h/f. Mr. Harshal B. Khawale for the Petitioner in WP (L) No. 38451 of
2025.
Mr.Anoop Patil a/w Ms.Vaishali Ugale for the Respondent Nos.1 to
4/BMC in WP No.4795 of 2025.
Mr.Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Adv.Mangirishh Saraf and Adv.Joshua
Samuel i/b. LJ Law for Respondent No. 5 in WP No. 4795 of 2025 and for
Respondent No.2 in WP (L) No. 38451 of 2025.
Mr.R.R.Mishra for Respondent No.6 in WP No. 4795 of 2025- Society.
Mr.Nishigandh Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos. 7 and 8/State.
Ms.Vaishali Ugale for the Respondent/BMC in WP (L) No. 38451 of 2025.
Mrs.Gaurangi Patil, AGP for Respondent No. 5/State in WP (L) No. 38451
of 2025.
Mr.Santosh Nachanekar (Head Clerk- Estate) present in the Court.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 23rd JANUARY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 13th MARCH, 2026
Sunny Thote ...3
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 22:42:00 :::
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
JUDGMENT (PER : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by
consent of the parties.
2. We have heard the lengthy oral submissions of the learned
Advocates for the respective sides. They have tendered extensive written
notes of submissions. To avoid repetition, we are adverting to their
submissions in the course of this Judgment.
3. In the first Petition, the Petitioner is a Developer, namely
Crestline Developers LLP (hereinafter referred as the
Petitioner/Developer). In the second Petition, the Petitioner is an
individual, who claims to be a Member of the Karapurkar Chawl, one of
the seven Chawls which are under development.
4. In the first Petition, the Municipal Corporation and its officials
are arrayed as Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Respondent No.5 is a Developer,
namely Atmiya Future Venture Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the
Respondent/Developer). Respondent No.6 is a Cooperative Housing
Society Ltd.
Sunny Thote ...4
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
5. The Petitioner/Developer had approached this Court earlier in
Writ Petition No.3503 of 2025. The Petition was disposed off by an order
dated 19th September, 2025, which reads thus :-
"1. Interim Application (l) No. 29955 of 2025, was not
on board. Taken on board.
2. The Petitioners have assailed the approval granted
by Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.2, for the
redevelopment of the property.
3. According to the Petitioners and the Interveners,
who have tendered an Intervention Application,
Respondent No.1 has allegedly surreptitiously granted the
approval to Respondent No.2.
4. The learned Advocate representing Respondent
Nos.2 & 3 submits that neither any secrecy was
maintained in the matter, nor was the procedure opaque.
In a transparent way, the approval has been granted.
5. The Petitioners have issued a legal notice to the
Corporation through a lawyer's firm. Such a legal notice
cannot be construed as a representation made by an
aggrieved party to the Corporation.
6. The Petitioners as well as the Interveners submit that
they would be making their representations to the
Corporation within a period of one week.
7. The learned Advocate for the Corporation submits
that if such representations are tendered, the Appropriate
Officer deputed by Respondent No.1 would grant a
reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders
and after considering the respective stands and
grievances, an appropriate decision with reasons would be
arrived at.
Sunny Thote ...5
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
8. In view of the above statements having been
recorded, this Petition is disposed off.
9. The learned Advocate for the Corporation submitted
that a scrutiny of the claims of the tenants and due
verification of the documents / consent, would be initiated
from 25th September, 2025. We find that the said exercise
could be taken forward and could be concluded. We direct
that, the Corporation would neither disclose its decision in
the light of such exercise, nor would formalize the claims
of any person, until the grievances of the representatives
or grievances voiced in the representations, are dealt with.
10. We make it clear that those who do not file the
representations within 7 days, would be precluded from
making such representations, thereafter. On the
presumption that the representations would be filed on or
before 26th September, 2025, the Appropriate Officer
deputed by Respondent No.1 would arrange for a hearing
on the representations starting from 1st October, 2025 at
11.30 a.m. in his office.
11. If the hearing is not concluded, the next date of
hearing would be fixed on the same day. The hearing
would be completed by 8th October, 2025 and a reasoned
order would be passed by the Corporation on or before
18th October, 2025. The decision would be pronounced to
all the parties.
12. Having recorded the above statements and the
directions issued, the Writ Petition and Intervention
Application are disposed off."
6. In pursuance to the above order, the Municipal Corporation
has delivered an extensive order running into 22 Pages, dated 17th October,
2025, which is impugned in the first Petition.
Sunny Thote ...6
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION
7. The Municipal tenanted property is a cluster of Seven Chawls
situated on City Survey No.597, 597-A and 597-B of TPS IV Mahim
Division, which is commonly identified as Ahmed Manzil Chawl, J.B.
Marg, Elphinstone Parel, Mumbai-400025. A redevelopment of the
tenanted property under Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control and
Promotion Regulations, 2034 (hereinafter referred to as the 'DCPR-2034')
is contemplated.
8. The procedure for redevelopment is that an AGM has to be
conducted by a Society and a resolution has to be passed with 2/3 rd
majority of the Members. The redevelopment proposal is then tendered.
The proposal can be approved if supported by the consent of 51% of the
occupants/tenants of the Society.
9. While considering such a proposal under Regulation 33(7), in
the light of the provisions of the Maharashtra Housing and Area
Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MHADA Act,
1976'), the Planning Authority of Maharashtra Housing and Area
Development Authority ('MHADA') and the Mumbai Building Repairs
Sunny Thote ...7
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
and Reconstruction Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'MBRRB'),
examine several mandatory parameters. The eligibility of the premises to
be subjected to redevelopment, is assessed. Whether the structure existed
prior to 30th September, 1969 and whether it is cessed or was formally a
cessed building governed by the MHADA Act, 1976, is verified. The
eligibility has to be formally certified by the MBRRB.
10. The locus of the party proposing redevelopment is scrutinized.
A redevelopment proposal can be initiated by the landlord, a cooperative
housing society of occupiers, a Cooperative Housing Society of landlords
or a Joint Body of landlord and occupiers. A developer does not have an
independent right to individually propose development and can act only
through one of the recognized entities.
11. What is of great significance, rather a decisive factor, is that
an irrevocable written consent of not less than 51% of the eligible
occupiers, has to be received. Such consent cannot be merely contractual.
It has to be statutorily enforceable. The MBRRB has to verify and certify
that 51% and more written consents have been received. The Authorities
have to verify the genuineness of the consent declarations and scrutinize
whether each of them is free from coercion, fraud or misrepresentation.
Sunny Thote ...8
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
The list of eligible occupiers and the areas occupied by each tenant, must
also be certified by the MBRRB, because the rehabilitation entitlement and
Floor Space Index ('FSI') calculation, depends upon such certification.
12. In addition to the above, the proposal must provide for
statutory rehabilitation entitlements, including minimum and maximum
carpet area, transit accommodation, corpus fund and compliance with
MHADA norms. The Planning Authority examines whether the proposed
FSI and incentive FSI are in accordance with Regulation 33(7), whether
the MHADA/MCGM share of surplus built-up area is correctly provided
and whether the developer has the adequate financial and technical
capacity to complete the project. Public interest considerations such as
safety, density, open spaces and road width are also taken into account.
13. In the backdrop of the above procedure, it is also admitted that
two competitive or parallel development proposals for the same cessed
building, cannot be entertained at the same time. The judgment delivered
in Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari and Others V/s. Chief Executive Officers, Slum
Rehabilitation Authority and Others, 2006 Mh.L.J. 282, concludes that the
Scheme under Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control Regulation
for the City of Mumbai, 1991 (DCR-1991), mandates that the first
Sunny Thote ...9
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
application received has to be processed and decided first, and two
applications cannot be simultaneously considered. The same prescription
of law is also applicable under DCPR-2034 by certain circulars of the
Corporation, is an admitted position. A second proposal may be considered
only in exceptional circumstances, such as, where the consent for the first
proposal subsequently falls below 51% or the approved proposal is
abandoned or not acted upon for a substantial period or when consent is
found to be vitiated due to fraud, coercion or misrepresentation.
14. The record reveals that Respondent No.6/Society had earlier
submitted a proposal along with a Developer M/s. Hi-Rock Vora and
Vishal Joint Ventures. The office of the Corporation issued an LOI in
favour of the Developer and the Society, on 19th October, 2016. There was
no development or progress on the said proposal for almost eight years.
With the approval of the Administrator (IMP.COM) vide ICR No.07 dated
24th June, 2024 and Administrator (Corporation) vide ICR No.226 dated 2 nd
July, 2024, the said proposal was recorded (rejected) and the Society as
well as the Developer were informed vide Office Letter dated 3rd August,
2024. This paved the way for submission of a fresh proposal by the
society.
Sunny Thote ...10
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
15. After the letter of termination of earlier LOI was issued, the
Society, 'Sant Rohidas Co.Op. Hsg. Society (Ltd.) (Respondent
No.6/Society)' held a General Body Meeting on 4 th August, 2024 and
appointed Respondent No.5/Developer, and Mr. Patravala as their
Architect. A Resolution dated 4th August, 2024 was passed to this effect.
The architect, Mr. Kulin Patravala of M/s. Buicons Consultant LLP
(hereinafter referred to as the Architect), made an online application on 13th
November, 2024, on behalf of Respondent no. 5 developer. The
Corporation was requested to accept the proposal for redevelopment of five
Municipal Chawls under Regulation 33(7) of DCPR-2034. The
Corporation informed the Respondent No.5/Developer vide letter dated
12.03.2025, to submit a consolidated proposal for redevelopment of all
seven chawls situated on the said plots, along with the consent of Principal
Tenants, through online system. Record reveals that the Architect uploaded
the additional consents of remaining chawls and other documents, for the
seven chawls.
16. The demand register tendered by the Architect indicates 154
Municipal Tenants in seven chawls. Out of these, 117 are residential
tenants and 37 are commercial tenants. In addition, there are about 31
occupants out of which 19 are residential and 12 are commercial, which are
Sunny Thote ...11
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
of protected nature. Respondent No.5/Developer submitted 113 consents of
Municipal Tenants. 82 amongst them are Principal Tenants and 31 are sub-
tenants. Consequentially, the Respondent No.5/Developer had produced
53.25% consents of the Principal Tenants.
17. The grievance of the Petitioner/Developer, as is pleaded in the
Petition, is that Respondent No.6/Society suffered an order of liquidation.
Few individual members have taken a decision without the consent of the
majority of members. Such consent can be given only after liquidation
proceedings are concluded.
18. The Respondent No.6/Society was registered on 26 th August,
2009 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act,
1960. An interim liquidation order was passed on 27 th November, 2017. A
final order was passed on 30th July, 2018. Further orders of modification
were passed on 10th December 2020, 22nd July, 2022 and 10th November,
2022 by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies. The order of
liquidation was finally quashed and set aside by the order of the Divisional
Registrar Cooperative Societies in Appeal No.85/2025, dated 15 th May,
2025. As such, the status of Respondent No.6/Society was restored and
remains intact till today.
Sunny Thote ...12
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
19. The Petitioner/Developer has alleged that the GB of
Respondent No.6/Society had passed the Resolution in a meeting attended
by only 17 occupants. The collective interest and welfare of the occupant
community has to be considered. The DCPR-2034 requires that the
meeting must be attended by 2/3rd members of the Society. The
Petitioner/Developer also submitted an online proposal on 3 rd May, 2025
for redevelopment on the plot consisting five chawls having 85 tenants.
The Petitioner/Developer had initially submitted 39 consents out of 85
tenants (from 5 chawls only). 29 were Principal Tenants, 6 were sub-
tenants and 4 were not on record. The Petitioner/Developer then tendered
17 more consents on 16th May, 2025. Amongst these, there are 10 Principal
Tenants, 4 sub-tenants and 3 are not on record. As per the Corporation, the
Petitioner/Developer had 45.88% consents.
20. The Petitioner/Developer has repeatedly averred in the memo
of the Petition that the General Body Meeting of Respondent No.6/Society
was not attended by majority members and only 17 members have attended
the meeting and, therefore, the GBM resolution dated 04.08.2024 is
invalid. The Corporation should not have taken cognizance of the same.
The Will of the majority has to prevail. A false claim is made by
Respondent No.6/Society that majority have consented in favour of
Sunny Thote ...13
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
Respondent No.5/Developer. Per contra, the Respondent no.6 Society has
refuted these allegations. So also, the registered consents falsify the
allegations of the Petitioner Developer.
21. The Petitioner/Developer has formulated its grounds at
Clauses A to O (Page Nos.24 to 29), which read as under (verbatim) :-
"A. That the impugned order dated 17th October,
2025 is in violation of the unequivocal statement made
by the MCGM, which is recorded in paragraph 9 of the
order dated 19th September, 2025 passed in Writ
Petition No.3503 of 2025 wherein the
Respondents/MCGM was under an obligation to
scrutinise all the claim of the tenants and due
verification of the documents/consents, but without
carrying out that exercise, the Respondent Nos. 1 to
4/MCGM failed to comply with the same and,
therefore, the said act itself shows that there is a
violation of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court
dated 19th September, 2025 in Writ Petition No.3503 of
2025 with Interim Application Lodging No.29955 of
2025 and due to the contemptuous act on the part of the
Respondent Nos.1 to 4, the impugned orders dated 17th
October, 2025 and 26th May, 2026 need to be quashed
and set aside.
B. That the impugned order dated 17th October,
2025 and the earlier approval granted on 26 th May,
2025 is passed by the Respondent No.2, which clearly
shows that he has acted "to take a decision for his own
cause", there is a violation of fundamental rule of
natural justice/procedural fairness. In the present case,
the decision maker, does not have a personal or
pecuniary interest in the outcome and the said strict
judicial act is expected from quasi judicial and
administrative authority. There is a violation of settled
Sunny Thote ...14
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
principle of law that "no person can be a Judge in his
own cause". (Memo Jubex In Causa Sua).
C. Thus the Respondent No.2 violated the basic
principle of audi alteram partem evolved through
judicial interpretation as "basic elements of fair
hearing".
D. That the impugned order passed by the
Respondent No.1 herein is utter non compliance of the
order dated 19th September, 2025 passed by the Hon'ble
High Court. As this Hon'ble Court specifically
observed that the appropriate officer deputed by the
Respondent No.1 would grant reasonable opportunity
of hearing to all the stake holders and after considering
the respective stands and the grievances and
appropriate decisions with reasons would be arrived at.
The Respondent No.1 herein failed to comply with the
mandate of this Hon'ble Court.
E. That the Impugned order dated 17th October
2025 passed by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner
(Estate), MCGM. It is surprising that the impugned
approval dated 26th May, 2025 was also passed by the
Ld. Assistant Commissioner (Estate) therefore there is
utter violation settled principle of law and the
Respondent No.1 herein failed to follow the principal
of natural justice. The Ld. The Assistant Commissioner
(Estate) has granted the approval and the same officer
could not have been expected to objectively reconsider
the representation. Hence there is no application of
mind as the impugned order does not deal with the
grounds or document submitted by the Petitioner.
F. That the impugned order dated 17th October,
2025 and 26.05.2025 are ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and
unsustainable in law. It has been granted without notice
to or participation of the lawful tenants/occupants of
the cluster, thereby violating their fundamental right to
be heard under the principles of natural justice.
Sunny Thote ...15
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
G. That the some of the members of the Society
who are lawful occupants and primary stakeholders in
the redevelopment process, were not consulted or heard
prior to the grant of approval. Their legal notice dated
27.05.2025, highlighting material objections, has gone
unaddressed, evidencing a mechanical and biased
administrative approach.
H. That the purported appointment of Respondent
No. 5 is based on a General Body Meeting dated
04.08.2024, allegedly attended by only 17 individuals
from Ahmed Manzil Chawl alone. This meeting
excluded occupants of the remaining four chawls,
rendering the resolution non-representative,
procedurally defective, and void ab initio.
I. That the actions of Respondents No. 5, in
uploading documents on the MCGM portal without
proper and verified consent from the majority of
occupants, and the manner in which Respondent No. 1
processed and approved the proposal, are riddled with
procedural irregularities, including disregard for the
rights of affected tenants.
J. That even after being formally notified
through a legal notice dated 27.05.2025 of the illegality
and procedural lapses, Respondent No. 1 failed to
undertake any remedial or corrective measures. This
inaction not only perpetuates illegality but also reflects
abdication of statutory responsibility.
K. That the sequence of events and timing of the
approval raise serious concerns regarding mala fide
intent and lack of application of mind by Respondent
No. 1. Despite being aware of the dissolution of the
society and the dubious nature of the GBM, the
approval was still granted, indicating extraneous
considerations.
L. That the members of the society, as lawful
occupants of the majority of the cluster, face the threat
Sunny Thote ...16
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
of dispossession and loss of property rights through an
opaque and illegal process. Permitting such actions to
stand would amount to legalizing fraud and abuse of
the redevelopment mechanism established under law.
M. That the selective recognition of a defunct
Society's resolution, without verifying its locus or
obtaining cluster-wide representation, amounts
arbitrary and discriminatory administrative action. It
violates Article 14 of the Constitution by treating
similarly placed chawl occupants differently and
excluding them from decisions affecting their homes
and rights.
N. That the members of the Society who have
given consent in favour of the Petitioner herein are
lawful and long-term occupants, had a legitimate
expectation of being consulted and included in any
redevelopment proposal. The denial of this
participative right, despite formal representations,
constitutes a breach of administrative fairness and
transparency, attracting interference under Article 226.
O. That the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein failed
to consider the individual consent given in favour of
the Petitioner herein and without considering the same
the Respondent No.1 herein have passed the impugned
order dated 17th October, 2025."
22. The Municipal Corporation, Respondent Nos.1 to 4, has filed
the affidavit in reply dated 21st January 2026, through Dr. Prithviraj
Chavan, Assistant Commissioner (Estates). It is canvassed that pursuant to
the order of this Court in the earlier Petition, dated 19 th September, 2025
(reproduced herein above below Paragraph No.5), a notice of hearing was
issued. The hearing were conducted on 1 st October 2025, 3rd October 2025,
Sunny Thote ...17
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
6th October 2025, 7th October, 2025 and 8th October, 2025. Respondent
No.5/Developer submitted 87 registered consents of Principal Municipal
Tenants ('PMT'), duly registered before the Office of the Joint Sub-
Registrar Mumbai. After conducting the hearing in the matter on several
dates and after recording the statements of all those who appeared before
the authority, a detailed order was passed by the Corporation on 17 th
October 2025, which is impugned in this Petition.
23. The 87 registered consents were tendered by R5 Developer,
prior to 17th October, 2025. Thereafter, two registered consents of PMT
were submitted by Respondent No.5/Developer on 31 st October, 2025. The
law mandates that only one proposal has to be entertained at a time and
only after the proposal is rejected or disposed off for any reason, that the
proposal of the Petitioner/Developer could have been considered.
Respondent No.5/Developer had the registered consents of 53.25%.
24. Be that as it may, the consents tendered by the
Petitioner/Developer would be inconsequential because the second
proposal for development of all the chawls was never tendered by the
Petitioner/Developer, in as much as, the proposal of the
Petitioner/Developer cannot be entertained until the proposal of
Respondent No.5/Developer is rejected. All the consents tendered by
Sunny Thote ...18
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
Respondent No.5/Developer were duly registered before the Joint Sub-
Registrar Mumbai. The Corporation submits that a further verification of
the consents would not be necessary because all the consents were
registered before the Joint Sub-Registrar Mumbai, in view of the
amendment to the extent of 'Consent Verification', having been duly made
to the Circular No.AC/Estates/12/2020-2021, dated 17 th November, 2020,
vide the amending Circular bearing No.
AC/ESTATES/538455/AE(IMP)/AO(SOC), dated 17th February, 2025. The
entire list of the registered consents submitted by Respondent
No.5/Developer with the BMC, have been placed on record.
25. The amendment circular dated 17th February, 2025 clearly
indicates that if the Society/Developer submits notarized consent forms of
the Principal Tenants, the procedure for verification of the consents will be
followed as per the earlier circular dated 17 th November, 2020, which
required consent verification of the tenants, biometric data recording, video
shooting etc. However, if the Society/Developer submits original consents
of the tenants duly registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Mumbai
City/Suburban, at the time of submission of the redevelopment proposal or
before consent verification, the procedure for consent verification will not
be followed since it would amount to being a repetitive procedure.
Sunny Thote ...19
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
26. Respondent No.5/Society has contended as follows :
(a) The MCGM, in its capacity of being the landlord of the
subject property, has accepted the proposal for redevelopment
submitted by Respondent No.5/Developer vide its order dated 26 th
May, 2025 under Section 33(7) of the DCPR, 2034.
(b) The Competent Authority has rejected the objections of
the Petitioner/Developer vide the impugned order dated
17th October, 2025 by recording the following findings :-
(i) There are a total 154 Municipal Tenants in 7
chawls. 117 are residential and 37 are commercial tenants.
(ii) Respondent No.5/Developer submitted 113
irrevocable consents of Municipal Tenants at the time of
submission of its revised proposal on 24th April, 2025. It had
53.25% consents, thereby qualifying as per Rule 37(7) of the
DCPR-2034.
(iii) The Petitioner/Developer tendered an online
proposal on 3rd May, 2025 in relation to only 5 chawls, namely
Karapurwala Chawl, Marwadi Chawl, Bhagsheth Waikul
Chawl, Dulambi Kasam Chawl and Ahmed Manzil Chawl.
The Petitioner/Developer has submitted 29 consents of
Sunny Thote ...20
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
Principal Tenants and 6 sub-tenants. In addition, it attempted
to tender 17 consents on 16th May, 2025, out of which 10
consents were of Principal Tenants and 4 were sub-tenants.
This was for only 5 chawls and accounted for 45.88%, which
does not fulfill the criteria of minimum 51% consents.
(iv) The MCGM had rejected the proposal of the
Petitioner/Developer since an earlier application filed by
Respondent No.5/Developer was already accepted. The
Petitioner/Developer did not fulfill 51% consents and the
Municipal Commissioner had directed the redevelopment of
the subject property over all three plots which covered seven
chawls to be undertaken by a single developer.
(v) The liquidation order earlier passed in the context
of Respondent No.6/Society was set aside in appeal
proceedings on 15th May, 2025. Respondent No.6/Society
submitted letters of its General Body Meeting dated 17 th June,
2025 and 25th July 2025, which records that 99 tenants had
given their consents to support the redevelopment through
Respondent No.5/Developer.
Sunny Thote ...21
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
(vi) The MCGM had directed Respondent
No.5/Developer by communication dated 12th March, 2025, to
submit a consolidated proposal for developing all seven
chawls. Respondent No.5/Developer tendered consents of 113
tenants which were scrutinized and accepted by MCGM on
26th May, 2025.
(vii) Respondent No.6/Society had informed MCGM
by letter dated 22nd July, 2025 that its Membership was of 96
tenants and share certificates of Membership was issued to
them.
(viii) Objection raised by the Petitioner/Developer as
regards the title of MCGM, on the claim made by the Wakf
Board, was rejected in the light of the PR Card and the TPS IV
of Mahim Division that was sanctioned w.e.f. 15 th August,
1963.
(c) As long as the first proposal tendered by a Developer
with more than 51% registered consents or verified consents was
pending and not yet rejected, a second proposal cannot be
entertained by the Corporation. The Petitioner/Developer submitted
Sunny Thote ...22
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
his proposal when the proposal of Respondent No.5/Developer was
still pending.
(d) In Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari (Supra), it was held that a
second proposal during the pendency of the first proposal, cannot
be entertained under Regulation 33(10), DCR-1991. It is
interpreted by this Court that unhealthy competition amongst rival
developers has to be prevented so as to restrain horse trading of
tenants in the matter of granting consents.
(e) The Petitioner/Developer had 45.88% consents, whereas
Respondent No.5/Developer had 53.25% registered consents.
(f) The Petitioner/Developer tendered a proposal for only
five chawls, whereas the Respondent No.5/Developer submitted the
revised proposal for all seven chawls, before the
Petitioner/Developer tendered its proposal.
(g) The MCGM rightly took a decision that the
redevelopment of all seven chawls having 154 tenants, was needed
because, if the Petitioner/Developer's proposal for developing five
chawls would have been accepted, the remaining two chawls would
get no developer and redevelopment would not be feasible due to
planning constraints for only 2 chawls.
Sunny Thote ...23
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
(h) The MCGM has filed an affidavit in reply dated 21st
January 2026, which indicates that the Petitioner/Developer
tendered its proposal on 25/26, September 2025, only after the
order of this Court dated 19th October, 2025 in Writ Petition
No.3503 of 2025.
(i) The Respondent No.5/Developer has submitted 87
registered consents of Principal Tenants before 17 th October, 2025
and two more were submitted on 31 st October 2025, accounting for
53.25% consents for all the seven chawls.
(j) The impugned order is detailed running into 22 Pages
considering all the contentions and objections of the
Petitioner/Developer, which are now being canvassed in this
Petition.
(k) The MCGM (BMC) had conveyed to the Architect of
Respondent No.5/Developer, vide its letter dated 26 th May, 2025
that the proposal tendered would be processed on its merits and the
Architect should contact the Competent Office to complete the
procedure of inventory and tenancy verification of the tenants. In
view of the said communication, Respondent No.5/Developer
Sunny Thote ...24
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
ensured that each tenant was presented before the joint sub-registrar
for the registration of his/her consent.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
27. We have come across hundreds of cases, wherein disputes
between developers have truncated the redevelopment projects. In several
cases, competing developers created a deadlock which resulted in the
failure of the redevelopment. There are several instances when buildings
have been demolished, the tenants/occupants have been dislodged and all
of them are in wilderness. The unhealthy competition amongst the
developers has also created a deadlock and tenants/occupants have spent
years in the hope that the chawls would be redeveloped. The
redevelopment projects in hundreds of case in Mumbai, Thane, Bhiwandi-
Nizampur, Vasai-Virar, etc. have come to a standstill and the tenants,
occupants, have become distraught and exasperated. The wisdom of the
Corporation in not entertaining a competing developer until the first
proposal is rejected or withdrawn, in the light of Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari
(Supra), is fair, proper and appropriate. Tenants/occupants are in dire
straits, characterised by severe financial distress, due to truncated
redevelopment projects.
Sunny Thote ...25
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
28. Much ado is created by the Petitioner/Developer by
contending that Respondent No.6/Society had suffered an interim order of
appointment of a liquidator. However, subsequently the Appellate
Authority, vide order dated 15th May, 2025 quashed the order of
liquidation. As such, the order of liquidation does not exists in the eyes of
law. A majority of 53.25% registered consents disprove the allegations of
the Petitioner.
29. In Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari (Supra), the Bombay High Court
has concluded in Paragraph Nos.20 and 21, as under :
"20. If the entire scheme under Regulation 33(10) is
perused it is obvious that if 70% of the slum dwellers on a
particular area come together and apply after formation of
proposed co-operative housing society, the said application
has to be independently considered in accordance with law.
The scheme does not contemplate simultaneous
consideration of such an application made by a proposed
society with an Application subsequently made by another
proposed society relating to same land. The Applicant-
society has to have 70% support which obviously two
societies cannot have. The Application received first is to be
processed first independently. If it fails to get 70% support,
Second Application can be examined. The obvious intention
is to avoid unhealthy competition between the different
builders who are interested in supporting such societies. If
such a course of simultaneous consideration is permitted to
be adopted, unscrupulous persons and builders will try to
win over the hutment dwellers who have supported the
application made earlier by another society. Therefore, it is
not desirable that an application which is earlier made and
the one which is subsequently filed should be considered
Sunny Thote ...26
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
together. That is not the scheme provided under D.C.
Regulation 33(10). It is necessary that the application which
is first received in respect of a particular property by the
SRA should be processed and decided first. After decision of
the first Application, the second Application made by
another society can be considered depending on the result of
the first Application. The reason is that none of the societies
have any right, title and interest in respect of the property.
Such a course will prevent the unhealthy competition
between the builders or between the leaders of two groups in
a slum area.
21. On this background when we come back to the
present case, we find that regular application of the
petitioner No. 20-Society was accepted on 8th November,
2004 and was numbered. The Chief Executive Officer
committed an error by entertaining the application dated 9th
December, 2004 made by the fifth respondent-builder
though it was not accompanied with Annexure-I, Annexure-
II and Annexure-III and other prescribed documents. The
scheme does not contemplate simultaneous consideration of
two such applications. In our view, the application made by
the petitioner No. 20 should have been considered first in
accordance with law. If the scheme submitted by the
petitioner No. 20 was not viable or did not have 70%
support, the SRA could have always rejected the application
of the petitioner No. 20 and considered the application of the
respondent Nos. 4/5 provided a regular application was
made as per the procedure. The regular applications of the
respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was registered on 3rd August, 2005
i.e. before formal rejection of the application of the
petitioner No. 20 and the applications of the respondent Nos.
4 and 5 was in fact considered along with the application of
the petitioner No. 20. This was completely erroneous and
illegal. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 were seeking larger
area. Even if the Application of the petitioner No. 20 was
granted, the Application of the fourth respondent could have
been considered for remaining area."
Sunny Thote ...27
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
30. We have perused the impugned order thread-bare. On 14 th
January 2026, during the first hearing in this matter, the learned Advocate
for the Corporation had sought an adjournment. Hence, we had passed an
ex parte ad-interim order that the Assistant Commissioner, BMC, would
not pass a final order, so that this Petition does not become infructuous.
The said order was passed without considering the merits of the matter.
31. The detailed 22 Pages impugned order indicates that the
concerned Authority has recorded the submissions of those persons
including the Petitioner, Deepika Jitendra Bhaskar, who has filed a second
Petition before us. Out of 154 tenants, a handful of tenants have opposed
Respondent No.5/Developer. However, the fact remains that 53.25% of the
tenants have registered their consents before the statutory Authority. The
handful complaining tenants have either harped upon their personal desire
of opposing Respondent No.5/Developer or that the Respondent
No.6/Society had suffered a liquidation order. The Appellate Authority had
quashed and set aside the order of liquidation.
32. In such circumstances, we do not find that the impugned order
could be branded as being perverse or erroneous.
Sunny Thote ...28
WP-4795-25 and WP(L)-38451-2025-(CH).odt
33. Consequentially, Writ Petition No.4795 of 2025 filed by the
Petitioner/Developer stands dismissed. As a result, Writ Petition (L) No.
38451 of 2025, filed by a solitary Tenant, also stands dismissed.
34. Rule is discharged.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Sunny Thote ...29
