[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
V Universe Advertisement vs State Of Maharashtra Thr The Sub ... on 12 May, 2026
Digitally signed
by PALLAVI 11-WP-6550-2026.doc
PALLAVI MAHENDRA
MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR
WARGAONKAR Date:
2026.05.12
20:51:42 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6550 OF 2026
V Universe Advertisement ...Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
__________
Mr Pralhad Paranjape a/w SS Bedekar, Shweta More and Swapnil Shanbhag for
the Petitioner.
Mr PP Kakade, AGP a/w Ms Pooja Patil, AGP for respondent/State.
Mr Tejesh Dande a/w Bharat Gadhavi and Sarvesh Deshpande i/byy Mr Tejesh
Dande for the Respondent No.3/NMMC.
Mr Tushar Godave, Sr Clerk, Tax Inspector, NMMC a/w Ms Anusha Shete,
Asst Law Officer, NMMC present.
Mr Bidwai, Dy Engg, MRC-9, Kurla, Mumbai present.
Mr Anuj Jha, partner of Petitioner present.
__________
CORAM : ADVAIT M. SETHNA &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 12 MAY 2026.
(VACATION COURT)
P.C.:
1. The Petitioner has moved before Vacation Court on the ground of
urgency being the challenge to the letter dated 23.04.2026 issued by the
Sub-Divisional Officer, PWD, calling upon the Petitioner to remove LED
hoarding ("Subject Hoarding" for short) installed on Jui Creek Bridge
11-WP-6550-2026.doc
("concerned Bridge" for short) on the basis of a decision taken by the
Municipal Commissioner to that effect in view of a purported structural
audit which has purportedly held the hoarding to be unsafe. According to
the Petitioner, it is not heard when such decision was taken. The
Petitioner, itself carried out structural audit of the bridge in question in
March 2025 and same indicated that the bridge was in good condition.
According to the Petitioner, neither the minutes of the meeting wherein
the decision was taken to remove the hoarding nor the purported
structural audit report on the basis of which such decision was taken have
been provided to the Petitioner. It is, in this backdrop, we have heard the
learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Issue Notice to the respondents. Mr Tejesh Dande waives service of
notice on behalf of Respondent No.3/BMC. Mr pp Kakade waives service
of notice on behalf of the Respondent/ State.
3. Mr Pralhad Paranjape, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the Petitioner has submitted that the said hoarding was installed on the
said bridge in June 2025. To this effect, he has relied on a communication
dated 05.05.2025 (Exh.C) to the petition. According to the said
communication, there is a contractual arrangement between the Petitioner
and PWD for a period of 5 years from 05.05.2025, as stated in the said
letter. He, further draws our attention to the communication dated
05.03.2025 (Exh.E), which according to him, is a structural audit report
11-WP-6550-2026.doc
of VJTI, Mumbai, which has tested the structure as well as weight of the
subject hoarding and the concerned bridge. The said report also provides
that various tests have been conducted in this regard by VJTI, Mumbai,
including Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test, Rebound Hammer Test, Core
Compression Test with regard to the structure and weight of the subject
hoarding and the said bridge.
4. Mr Tejesh Dande, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, has placed on record a
communication dated 30.04.2026. By this communication, it appears
that in Item No.4 thereof, a structural audit has been recommended for
the Municipal limit of Navi Mumbai in respect of the areas covering the
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation. A structural audit has been
recommended for the entire area. This does not appear to include the
subject hoarding and/or the concerned bridge.
5. Mr PP Kakade, the learned AGP representing Respondent/State,
has drawn our attention to the impugned communication dated
23.04.2026. According to the said communication, a structural audit has
been conducted pursuant to which the subject hoarding was declared as
distressed and unsafe, and was recommended to be removed immediately.
He has, therefore, supported the impugned communication, in light of the
reasons recorded therein.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length
11-WP-6550-2026.doc
and with their assistance perused the record. It appears that the
communication issued by the Municipal Corporation dated 30.04.2026,
prima facie would have a bearing on the impugned communication dated
23.04.2026 pursuant to which structural audit would have been
conducted as referred to in the impugned communication. However,
there is no reference to the specific hoarding and/or the concerned bridge
on which the subject hoarding has been placed and continues to be there
since June 2025.
7. We have also perused the reports of Veermata Jijabai Technological
Institute ("VJTI" for short) which are placed on the record in the petition,
as well as the communication dated 05.05.2025 (Exh.C) which indicates
contractual agreement between the Petitioner and PWD for a period of 5
years. We have also perused the communication dated 05.05.2025
(Exh.F) addressed to the Petitioner where, the Petitioner inter alia was
permitted to start the LED facility after having completed all formalities.
8. Considering the above submissions, and the record before us, we are
of the prima facie opinion that a joint inspection be conducted in respect
of the said hoarding on the concerned bridge within a period of 2 weeks
from today. This would be a joint inspection in the presence of Experts
from VJTI.
9. Needless to mention that, all the relevant technical angles including
structural and technical feasibility of the hoarding and the bridge shall be
11-WP-6550-2026.doc
duly carried out by the Experts from VJTI which would also include due
consideration of safety parameters.
10. The cost of inspection shall be borne by the Petitioner as fairly
agreed.
11. Let Affidavit-in-Reply to the Petition including rejoinder be filed
on or before next date and placing on record such report pursuant to the
joint inspection be carried out as per our directions, aforementioned.
12. Mr Paranjape, on instructions, states that the Petitioner would
furnish an undertaking to this Court that in the event of any untoward
incident, the entire responsibility will be borne by the Petitioner alone.
Such a statement on instructions is accepted. Let the undertaking be filed
by 14.05.2026.
13. By consent, place the Petition for further consideration on
28.05.2026.
14. In light of the above, parties are directed to maintain status-quo
until the next date.
15. Stand over to 28 May 2026 for further consideration.
[SANDESH D. PATIL, J] [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]
