Sunday, 31, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ghansham Singh Narang vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation
2026 Latest Caselaw 5018 Bom

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 5018 Bom
Judgement Date : 13 May, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Ghansham Singh Narang vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation on 13 May, 2026

                                                                   25-WP(L)-16926-2026 (OS).doc




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                       ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                           WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 16926 OF 2026

        Ghansham Singh Narang                                             ...Petitioner
              Versus
        Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation                                ...Respondent
                                  __________

        Adv. Rohan Cama, Suraj Iyer, Harvardhan Melanta a/w Kavita Sharma, i/b
        Ganesh and Co,. for the Petitioner.
        Adv. Jyoti Mhatre, i/b Adv. Komal Punjabi, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 -
        BMC.
        Shri. Aakash Patil, J.E (B&F) H/W ward.
                                       __________

                                       CORAM : ADVAIT M. SETHNA &
                                               SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 13 MAY 2026 (VACATION COURT)

P.C.:

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This petition is moved on the ground of extreme urgency, it being

stated that the Respondents have already disconnected the electricity and

water supply to the Petitioner's residential building pursuant to the

impugned orders classifying the building as C-1 category. The Petitioner is

a super senior citizen aged over 80 years and is facing an imminent threat

of eviction, demolition, and further coercive action.

3. Issue Notice to the Respondents returnable on 25 May 2026.

25-WP(L)-16926-2026 (OS).doc

4. Ms. Jyoti Mhatre, waives service for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

5. Mr. Cama, learned counsel for the Petitioner, has strenuously urged

that the impugned notice (Exhibit "B" to the Petition) classifying the

building structure as C-1 is itself contrary to law. He has also referred to

the order of the Technical Advisory Committee, which, according to him,

is legally unsustainable and suffers from several infirmities.

6. Ms. Jyoti Mhatre, learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation,

submitted that several other persons residing in the said building have

already vacated the premises considering the present condition of the

building. She has gainfully relied upon the report of the Technology

Advisory Committee meeting held on 23 March 2026.

7. It is not disputed that the Petitioner in the present case is a senior

citizen aged about 80 years.

8. Mr. Cama, learned counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions,

submitted that the Petitioner has been residing in the said premises since

about 1975.

9. The only consideration that weighs with this Court at this stage is

purely humanitarian. We do not wish to delve into the merits of the matter

or the legality and validity of the action taken by the Respondents at this

stage. However, considering that the Petitioner is a senior citizen, he ought

not to be displaced suddenly, as the same would cause great inconvenience

to him. Only for this reason, and again making it clear that we have not

25-WP(L)-16926-2026 (OS).doc

expressed any opinion on the merits, and purely on humanitarian

considerations, we deem it appropriate to adjourn the proceedings to 25

May 2026.

10. In the meantime, the water and electricity supply shall be restored

in the said premises of the Petitioner by the Respondents.

11. Learned counsel for the Respondent has reiterated that the said

building is in a highly dilapidated condition. Considering the situation in

its entirety, we deem it appropriate to place the proceedings on 25 May

2026 for further consideration. Until then, the Petitioner may be

permitted to reside in the said premises, with the water and electricity

supply being restored, purely as a temporary measure.

12. In our view, in the interest of justice, the senior citizen-Petitioner

should, in the meantime, gets a breather to make arrangements to shift to

alternate premises, considering that his safety is equally paramount.

13. Mr. Cama, at this stage, on instructions, submitted that an

undertaking would be furnished to this Court by 15 May 2026,

categorically recording that the Petitioner is ready and willing to reside in

the said premises until the next date at his own risk and subject to the

consequences arising therefrom, particularly in view of the objections and

concerns raised by the Respondent-Corporation regarding the dilapidated

condition of the building. Also that the Respondent - Corporation and/or

its officer shall not be made responsible in any manner whatsoever in this

25-WP(L)-16926-2026 (OS).doc

regard. Such Undertaking shall positively be filed before this Court by 15

May 2026.

14. Stand over to 25 May 2026, on which date the Court shall pass

further appropriate orders.

15. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

        [SANDESH D. PATIL, J]                          [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]










 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter