[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Balamurugan Santaram Konar vs Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra ... on 13 May, 2026
Digitally signed
by MULEY
SHUBHAM
MULEY PRAVINRAO
SHUBHAM Date:
PRAVINRAO 2026.05.13
1 22--24-WPL-16687-2026.doc
21:16:36
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 16687 OF 2026
Santhanam Narayan Konar through PoA Holder
Balamurugan Santhanam Konar ...Petitioner
Versus
Chief Executive Officer Maharashtra
Maritime Board & Ors. ...Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 16698 OF 2026
AND
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 16708 OF 2026
-----------------
Mr. S. M. Gorwadkar, Senior Advocate a/w Niranjan A. Mogre and Varun H.
Thanawala for the Petitioners in all Petitions.
Mr. Ishwar Nankani a/w Huzefa Khokhawala and Vrushali Pokharna i/by
M/s. Nankani & Associates for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in all Petitions.
Mr. Vikrant Parshurami, AGP for State in WPL/16687/2026.
Mr. Dipesh Siroya, AGP for State in WPL/16698/2026.
Smt. Vrushali Kabre, AGP for State in WPL/16708/2026.
-----------------
CORAM : ADVAIT M. SETHNA AND
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : 13 MAY, 2026
(VACATION COURT)
P.C.:-
1. The Petitioners have moved this Court on the ground of urgency. This
being that the Respondents by their eviction/demolition and demand notice
dated 17 April 2026 directs the Petitioners to pay annual lease rent w.e.f.
April 2026 at 10% of ready reckoner rate within 15 days from the receipt of
the said notice, failing which the stall of the Petitioners will be demolished.
Such is the submission of the Petitioners to move this Court on the ground
2 22--24-WPL-16687-2026.doc
of urgency. However, Mr. Nankani, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to
3 at the very outset would submit that this submission of the learned
counsel for the Petitioners itself is factually incorrect.
2. The Petitioners have inter alia challenged the legality and validity of
the Maharashtra Maritime Board (Leasing of Stalls and Leasing of Land for
Setting up of Stalls) Regulations, 2026 notified vide Notification
No.MMB/CEO/Revenue/2026 dated 9 April 2026.
3. In light of the above, Issue Notice returnable on 23 June 2026.
4. Mr. Nankani waives service for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
5. Mr. Gorwadkar, learned senior counsel for the Petitioners would
submit that the Petitioners are ready and willing to pay the ground rate as
demanded prior to the commencement of the Impugned Regulations
(supra) to the Petitioners by the end of the day today. He would state on
instructions that a demand draft in that regard is also ready, which would
be sent to the Respondents.
6. Mr. Nankani has raised serious doubts on the bonafides of the
Petitioners themselves. According to him, there are misstatements which are
made in the Petition. For this purpose, in our view a Reply Affidavit would
be necessary. Such Affidavit-in-Reply shall be filed on or before the next
date.
7. In our prima facie view, as the Petitioners are ready and willing to
pay the ground rate prior to the commencement of the impugned
3 22--24-WPL-16687-2026.doc
regulations to the Petitioners today, the same could be accepted on a
Without Prejudice Basis, subject to all rights and contentions of the parties
being expressly kept open. Such Reply Affidavit shall be filed by the
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 on or before 15 June 2026. The Petitioners are at
liberty to file a Rejoinder on or before 22 June 2026.
8. In the meantime, in light of the above, by way of an ad-interim order,
the Respondents shall not act upon the said eviction/demolition and
demand notice dated 17 April 2026 until the next date. It is clarified that
the Petitioners shall not claim any equities by way of this ad-interim order.
9. Stand over to 23 June 2026.
10. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
[SANDESH D. PATIL, J.] [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]
