2026:BHC-AS:1569 HARSH ADA H. SAWANT (P.A.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST.) NO.1145 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.1146 OF 2026 Vinod Tukan Yadav .. Appellant Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. .. Respondents .................…

 Ms. Suchita Pandey, Advocate i/by M/s. Pandey & Co. for Appellant.

...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : JANUARY 14, 2026 P.C . :

1. Not on Board. Mentioned by way of filing praecipe dated

14.01.2026. Perused the praecipe.

2. Heard Ms. Pandey, learned Advocate for Appellant.

3. Appellant – Plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit No.2839 of 2025 challenging the statutory notice issued under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short ‘the said Act’) by the Corporation, inter alia, in respect of unauthorised construction carried out by Plaintiff on the first floor of Plaintiff’s suit premises which are used by Plaintiff as Guest House under the nomenclature of Hotel SAI PLAZA.

4. Ms. Pandey draws my attention to the impugned order dated 08.01.2026 appended at page No.203 which is an ad-interim order. There are no reasons given in the ad-interim order and rightly so because the Corporation has not filed its Reply.

5. This is not the case where the Plaintiff is in possession of an illegal structure. The allegation in the notice which is appended to the Appeal from Order shows that Plaintiff has constructed an unauthorised construction on the first floor.

6. Ms. Pandey informs the Court that case of Plaintiff has not been considered at all. One of the reasons for not considering the case of Plaintiff as can be seen from the impugned order passed by the Designated Officer appended at page No.200 R of the Appeal from Order is that the document which was appended to the Affidavit-in- Reply dated 03.10.2025 by Plaintiff was not self certified. The scrutiny by the Designated Officer in the speaking order is on the basis of photocopy of documents which have not been verified by him as stated therein. There are in all 22 documents which have been considered.

7. What is considered by Designated Officer in the speaking order is required to be considered by the Court while passing the order on application for ad-interim / interim relief. All those considerations been absent in the impugned order dated 08.01.2026, the same is not sustainable. In any event it is an ad-interim which records that Corporation has not even filed the Reply and on the date on which the Motion was heard for ad-interim relief, the Corporation has sought time for filing a detailed reply.

8. In that view of the matter, the order dated 08.01.2026 stands quashed and set aside. The notice structure stands protected until the Notice of Motion No.56 of 2026 filed by Plaintiff is heard and decided by the Trial Court and no coercive steps shall be taken in furtherance of the impugned speaking order by the Corporation.

9. Corporation is directed to file its Affidavit-in-Reply within a period of two weeks from today before the Trial Court in the Notice of Motion. Rejoinder, if any to be filed within two weeks thereafter. The Notice of Motion is directed to be heard and decided by learned Trial Court as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of six weeks thereafter.

10. Needless to state that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits about legality of the notice structure of the Plaintiff and all contentions of Plaintiff as also Corporation are kept expressly open before the learned Trial Court to be determined in the Notice of Motion.

11. With the above directions, Appeal from Order is disposed. In view of disposal of Appeal from Order pending Interim Application do not survive and the same is also disposed.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

H. H. SAWANT Digitally signed HARSHADA by HARSHADA HANUMANT H SA A W N A U N M T ANT SAWANT Date: 2026.01.14