IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.8 OF 2025 Amit Rishikesh Mishra .. Petitioner Vs.

The Municipal Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Tushar N. Sonawane, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Tejesh Dande, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.

Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader, with Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader and Mrs. G.R. Raghuwanshi, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.8.

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. &

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

DATE : 4TH NOVEMBER 2025.

P.C. :

Seeking a direction to the respondent nos.1 to 6 to take immediate action for demolition of the alleged illegal building constructed by the respondent no.7, the present writ petition masked as a public interest litigation seeks the following reliefs:

“a. Rule be issued, record and proceeding be called for.

b. By way of an appropriate writ or order of this Hon’ble Court, the respondent nos.1 to 6 be directed to take immediate action for the demolition of the illegal building constructed by respondent no.7, located at Mauje-Airoli, Survey Nos.3, 5, 7, Sainathwadi, Sector-1, Airoli, Navi Mumbai, which has been unlawfully erected as a residential building.

c. And/or, by way of an appropriate writ or order of this Hon’ble Court, the respondent no.6(CIDCO) be directed to pull down or demolish the said illegal building, either by themselves or jointly with NMMC, with appropriate police protection as directed by this Hon’ble Court, and complete the demolition process, filing a report of such action to this Hon’ble Court.

d. In the meantime, be pleased to direct the Civil authorities i.e.

respondent nos.1 to 6 to seal the said illegal building under the direction of this Hon’ble Court by way of interim/ad-interim relief.

e. That be pleased to order appropriate legal/disciplinary action against the erring officers of the respondent nos.1 to 6 who failed to take action of demolition of the said illegal building thereby failed to comply with their legal obligation under the law.

f. Ad-interim relief in term of prayer clause (d) may kindly be granted.

g. Any other appropriate relief in terms of the prayer clauses (a) to (f) may kindly be granted as this Hon’ble Court deem fit.”

2. The petitioner is a resident in the same locality where the alleged illegal construction has been raised by the respondent no.7. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner waited for some time and when he obtained proof of illegal construction through Google Earth images, then filed several complaints including a letter to the Chief Minister’s office on 15^th May 2024 pointing out the illegal construction. In response, the Chief Minister’s office, Konkan Bhavan addressed a communication to the respondent no.1 directing that proper action should be taken by conducting an enquiry and in accordance with the applicable laws. The petitioner also filed a complaint on 22^nd July 2024 to the respondent no.6. Several RTI applications have also been filed by the petitioner before the respondent nos.1 to 6 on this issue. It is pursuant to the petitioner’s actions, that a notice under section 54 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act was issued by the respondent no.4 calling upon the respondent no.7 to immediately stop the unauthorized development on the said land. Despite the above, it is the petitioner’s grievance that the authorities have failed to act and permitted the respondent no.7 to continue the construction of the illegal structure. The building is now completed and it will mislead the purchasers who intend to purchase units in the said building. He relied upon the decision in “Supertech Limited v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association & Ors.”, (2021) 10 SCC 1, and submitted that the Court may take cognizance of the matter and issue directions for demolition of the illegal building raised by the respondent no.7.

3. There can be no quarrel with th