Judgment
29-WP-9329-2026.odt Pallavi IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9329 OF 2026 Kausar Baug Residents Forum Thru Representative ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra Thru Secretary And Ors. ...Respondent ...
Mr. Rahul S. Kate a/w Mr. Hritwik Kate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, GP, a/w Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Addl. G.P., Smt. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 5.
...
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.:
1.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner, has, inter alia, sought for the following reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:- “b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondents Authorities to forthwith take effective and lawful action for removal of all illegal encroachments, unauthorized structures and unlawful commercial activities operating in the Kausar Baug area, Kondhwa, Pune - 411048;
c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to take strict action against all unauthorized eateries, hotels, roadside vendors, temporary structures, marriage halls/lawns and commercial establishments operating without valid licenses, permissions and statutory compliances including trade license, GST registration, MPCB consent and Fire NOC;
1 PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Digitally signed by PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Date:
2026.09.11 12:25:48 +0530
29-WP-9329-2026.odt d) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to regulate and prohibit illegal commercial activities in public roads, footpaths, open spaces and playgrounds in the said locality, particularly during the month of Ramzan;
e) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to forthwith regulate and remove all illegal parking, unauthorized rickshaw stands and instances of double parking, and to ensure free and unobstructed movement of traffic and pedestrians;
f) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to ensure that all public roads, footpaths and open spaces are kept free from encroachments and are maintained in accordance with law;
g) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to ensure clear and permanent emergency access routes for ambulances, fire brigade and other emergency services;
h) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to implement proper sanitation, waste management and drainage systems and to prevent dumping of garbage and discharge of untreated waste water on public roads;
i) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to ensure compliance with fire safety norms and prohibit cooking activities involving open fire, grills, bhattis or smoke-emitting equipment without valid Fire NOC;” 2.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that ample evidence has been brought on record to indicate that there is a massive encroachment at the roadside.
3.
Until date, inspite of the detailed provisions stipulated under Section 354 of the BMC Act, 1988 the Respondent – Authority has not taken recourse to carry out removal of the illegal encroachment. He submits at present, the Petitioner is pressing reliefs only to the extent that the Respondent – Authorities may take 2
29-WP-9329-2026.odt a final decision under the Act, on the Petitioner’s complaints. As we find a detailed procedure prescribed under the statute, the Authorities may decide in terms of the mandate under the BMC Act, in accordance with law. For ready reference, Section 354 reads thus:
“354. Removal of structures, etc., which are in ruins or likely to fall.
(1) If it shall at any time appear to the Commissioner that any structure (including under this expression any building, wall or other structure and anything affixed to or projecting from, any building, wall or other structure) is in a ruinous condition, or likely to fall, or in any way dangerous to any person occupying, resorting to or passing by such structure or any other structure or place in the neighbourhood thereof, the Commissioner may, by written notice, require the owner or occupier of such structure to pull down, secure or repair such structure, [subject to the provisions of section 342] [These words and figures were inserted by Maharashtra 10 of 1996, Section 146.] and to prevent all cause of danger therefrom.
(2) The Commissioner may also if he thinks fit, require the said owner or occupier, by the said notice, either forthwith or before proceeding to pull down, secure or repair the said structure, to set up a proper and sufficient hoard or fence for the protection of passers by and other persons, with a convenient platform and handrail, if there be room enough for the same and the Commissioner shall think the same desirable, to serve as a footway for passengers outside of such hoard or fence.” 4.
Considering the factual situation as emerged, we are not inclined to keep the Petition pending by inviting any reply of the Respondents in the proceedings.
5.
As we find, it is the duty cast upon the Authority to ensure that there may not be any such encroachment over the 3
29-WP-9329-2026.odt roadside, we clarify that adequate notice/s are to be issued to the concerned persons before taking a decision in the matter. We expect that the proceedings are to be finalised by the Corporation, in accordance with law.
6.
This order has been passed with due assistance of Mrs.
Neha Bhide, learned Government Pleader.
7.
With the consent of the parties, we dispose of the Writ Petition, in the above terms without adverting to the merits of the matter.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 4