The Bombay High Court has asked the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to file an affidavit to explain its ‘high handed’ demolition of a structure within a span of merely 13 days from the date of issuance of the statutory notice. The High Court further stated that the Corporation cannot take the law into its own hands and it is answerable to the Court.

The High Court was considering an appeal filed against an order of the Trial Court dismissing a Notice of Motion.

The Single Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav stated, “Considering the submissions made by Mr. Jain at this mentioning state in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Corporation needs to file appropriate affidavit in reply to explain its high handed action. The timeline which is delineated hereinabove has prima facie proved that the Corporation has acted in extremely high handed manner in the present case.”

“...it is incumbent that a responsible officer of the Corporation files affidavit in reply giving explanation to the Court in respect of the high handed action of the Corporation in the present case. Names of the Officers involved in the present case shall be disclosed on Affidavit along with reasons for not following the due process and Corporation’s own circular. Once again I am impelled to pass such direction because the Corporation cannot take law into its own hands, deny the principles of natural justice, deny complying with guidelines issued in its own Circular and then not be answerable to anybody. Corporation is answerable to this Court. Plaintiff has approached this Court and the facts which are delineated herein above are prima facie evident from the record of the case”, it added.

Advocate Janay Jain represented the Appellant, while Advocate Sachin Vajale represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case as set up by the appellant was that the suit premises were demolished on February 6, 2026, by the Corporation in furtherance of the impugned statutory notice issued under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, dated March 23, 2026 and an ex parte speaking order passed by the Designated Officer of the Corporation dated January 31, 2026. The petitioner claimed that the statutory notice under Section 351 was issued on January 23, 2026, alleging unauthorised construction of the suit premises comprising 15 rooms and a detailed reply by the plaintiff was filed on January 27, 2026. It was submitted that without putting the Plaintiff on notice, the Designated Officer passed the speaking order directing the Plaintiff to remove the unauthorised structure. However, within six days thereafter, the Corporation arrived at the site of the notice structure and forcibly demolished the entire notice structure.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench held that the Corporation needed to file an appropriate affidavit in reply to explain its high-handed action. Taking note of the timeline, the Bench stated that the guidelines issued by the Corporation had been flouted by the Designated Officer and even the Officer ordering demolition.

“Once this is the position, it becomes incumbent upon the Corporation which is a Planning Authority to give appropriate explanation to the Court. In such strong facts and circumstances, if the Corporation is unable to give appropriate written explanation to the Court, the Court will have no option than to direct restoration and reconstruction of the suit premises of the Plaintiff”, the order read.

The Bench directed the Dy. Municipal Commissioner of the Corporation to file an appropriate affidavit in reply in the matter, setting out and explaining the circumstances and reasons which constrained and/or prompted the officers of the Corporation to disregard the prescribed timeline and to proceed, without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the Plaintiff with the demolition of the entire suit premises within a span of merely 13 days from the date of issuance of the statutory notice.

The Bench also asked the Municipal Commissioner to take cognisance of the order and ensure that the directions are followed and an appropriate reply is filed explaining the acts of the Corporation's Officers.

Cause Title: Ashok Mahadev Kule v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (Case No.: Appeal from Order No. 351 of 2026)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Janay Jain, Shailesh Pal, Vijay Shukla

Respondent: Advocate Sachin Vajale

Click here to read/download Order


Bombay High CourtJustice Milind N Jadhav

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.