2026:BHC-OS:5731-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5206 OF 2025 Rajshri Productions Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. … Petitioners Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. .… Respondents ****

Mr. Vaibhav Joglekar, Senior Advocate a/w Adv. Trushti Talekar i/b. Adv. Sheetal Angne, for the petitioners.

Mr. G. S. Godbole, Senior Advocate a/w Adv. S. V. Tondwalkar, for the respondent-BMC.

Mr. Shrikant Khairnar, Sub-Engineer (BP), G/S Ward present.

****

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &

S. M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 5^th MARCH, 2026 P.C. :

1. Heard Mr. Vaibhav Joglekar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. G. S. Godbole, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent-Corporation. The concerned officer is present in the Court.

2. The matter was heard for some time. In view of the submissions made at the bar by learned Senior Advocate and in deference to certain suggestions made by this Court, we propose to pass the following order which in our opinion would meet the ends of justice.

3. Rule. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith and Petition is taken up for hearing. The Advocate appearing for all the respondents waives service of Rule.

4. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking diverse reliefs. A declaration is sought that the works mentioned in the regularization plan/proposal dated 12^th/13^th May 2025 (Exhibit I and L to the Petition) are "tenantable repairs" as defined under Section 342 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (“the M.M.C. Act, 1888”, for short) and do not need approval or, alternatively, the said approval is liable to be granted. The Petitioners have also challenged the rejection of the said proposal by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively by their decisions dated 15^th May 2025, 21^st May 2025 and 28^th May 2025 (Exhibits P and P-1 to the Petition). The petitioners have also challenged the impugned notices dated 22^nd April 2025 and 18^th November 2025 (Exhibits H and AA to the Petition).

5. By an Order dated 3^rd February 2026, this Court had recorded the statement of the Ld. Advocate for the respondent No.

1 that the authorized personnel of Corporation would visit the premises to carry out inspection on 4^th February 2026 and a report identifying the area requiring tenantable repairs and the area where fresh construction is noticed, would be submitted to this Court on 5^th February 2026. Accordingly, such inspection has been carried out and the Report of Inspection dt. 4^th February 2026 was submitted during the course of hearing on 5^th February 2026 which has been taken on record and marked "X-1" for identification.

6. It is an accepted position that a Joint Meeting of the representatives and the Architect of the petitioners and the concerned Officers of the Building Permission and Building and Factories Departments of the respondent No.1 Corporation was held with a view to check and verify the notice structures vis a vis the sanctioned Building Plans and to consider as to which of the violations can be considered for regularization under Regulation 9(4) of the Development Control and Promotions Regulations for Greater Mumbai 2034 and which items indicated in the impugned notices have been complied with by the petitioners.

7. The respective Counsels for the parties state that the petitioners have complied with the following directions contained in Notice dated 22^nd April 2025 issued by the Officers of the respondent No.1 under Section 53 (1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“the M.R. & T.P. Act, 1966”, for short) namely:-

(a) Violation indicated at Sr. No.3 in the Schedule of notice regarding removal of existing B.M. Wall of AHU admeasuring 4.75 x 2.24 M. has been complied with by restoring the B.M.

Walls of the AHU.

(b) Violation indicated at Sr. No.5 in the Schedule of notice regarding change of user from AHU to Pantry and Dinning area has been complied with.

In view of these compliances, the said notice dated 22^nd April 2025 w