Bombay High Court
Sai Darshan Complex Thr. Its Chirman ... vs Mr. Niraj Eknath Kabadi And Ors on 24 October, 2025
Mahesh RPW-34493-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO. 34493 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 13714 OF 2018
Sai Darshan Complex Thr. Its Chairman Sagar Redij. ... Applicant.
V/s.
Mr.Niraj Eknath Kabadi and others. ... Respondents
______________________
Mr. Vijay Kurle a/w. Mr. Vishwajeet Surve, Sakshi Jadhav, Suchitra Ballal, Sonal
Manchekar and Jayendra Manchekar, for the Applicant.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, AGP, a/w. Mr. Aditya R. Deolekar, AGP for Respondent No.1-
State.
Mr. Mandar Limaye, for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 (Through VC).
Mr. Amjith M. Anandhan, (through VC - For Petitioner in Writ Petition No.13714
of 2018) i/b. Mr. Sachin R. Pawar.
Mr. Niraj Eknath Kabadi, (Petitioner in Writ Petition No.13714 of 2018)
______________________
Digitally signed
by SANJAY
CORAM : RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.
SANJAY KASHINATH
KASHINATH NANOSKAR (VACATION COURT)
NANOSKAR Date:
2025.10.29
16:43:14 +0530
DATE : 24th OCTOBER 2025
P.C.:-
1. By the present Review Petition, the Review Petitioner (Intervener/ Applicant in IA No 1184 of 2025 in Writ Petition 13714 of 2018 [ For Intervention ] & Petitioner in Writ Petition No.5824 of 2025) seeks review, of 1/11 ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:41:11 ::: Mahesh RPW-34493-2025 the Order dated 22nd September, 2025 passed in Writ Petition No 13714 of 2018, and stay thereof. The Review Petitioner also seeks directions to the Respondent Thane Municipal Corporation to restore the water supply which was disconnected on 15th October, 2025.
2. Review Petitioner, contends that Writ Petition No 5824 of 2025 was de-tagged on an oral order/direction, without any order, and therefore the Review Petitioner was not heard when the order dated 22 nd September, 2025 was passed. That, Writ Petition No 5824 of 2025, filed by the Review Petitioner, is pending before this Court. That, in view order dated 5 th December, 2022 of this Court passed in PIL No. 111 of 2021, the review Petitioner ought to be protected. That, water supply to the buildings, which has been disconnected on 15 th October, 2025, be restored. The Review Petitioner cited case laws for general propositions of law.
3. The Learned Advocate, appearing for the Petitioner, in Writ Petition No.13714 of 2018, submitted a compilation of documents interalia containing pleadings, orders and a copy of the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the Tahshildar, Thane. The compilation is served upon the Review Petitioner. The Learned Advocate submits that, the review petition is filed to delay the demolition of illegal and unauthorized structures. That, by order dated 22 nd 2/11 ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:41:11 ::: Mahesh RPW-34493-2025 September 2025, Interim Application No.1184 of 2023 seeking intervention in Writ Petition No.13714 of 2018, was withdrawn by the Review Petitioner, on the ground that Writ Petition No 5824 of 2025, was already filed. That, as the intervention application, was withdrawn, there is no question of the Review Petitioner, being heard. That, incorrect statements have been made in the Review Petition to mislead this court. That, proceedings have been de-tagged, vide order dated 16th September, 2025, passed in Writ Petition No 5824 of 2025. The same was done, as per the directions, contained in the order dated 15 th April, 2025, passed in Writ Petition 6700 of 2018. That, the SLP was withdrawn on 8 th October, 2025, and Review Petition was filed on 16 th October, 2025 i.e. one day before the vacations. That, pursuant to orders dated 22 nd September, 2025, Advocate for the Review Petitioner, had filed an Affidavit tendering an unconditional apology, as the court proceedings were disturbed, even though, the Advocate for the Review Petitioner, had no concern whatsoever with the proceeding and was not representing any of the parties. That, vide an affidavit dated 22nd September,2025, an unconditional apology, was tendered to the Court. That, Writ Petition No.5824 of 2025 and IA No.1184 of 2025 have been filed by the Advocate Mr. Amit Karkhanis and the present Review Petition is filed by Advocate Mr. Vijay Kurle. That, the Supreme Court, in the matter of 3/11 ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:41:11 ::: Mahesh RPW-34493-2025 Tamilnadu Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr reported in (1997) 9 SCC 736, has deprecated the practice of filing a review petition by changing advocates. That,Writ Petition bearing No.5824 of 2025 raises similar issues and is pending in this Court.
4. The Learned Advocate for the Thane Municipal Corporation submitted a compilation of the documents, placing on record the steps taken by the Thane Municipal Corporation pursuant to the order dated 22 nd September, 2025.The Learned Advocate, submits that steps have been taken to disconnect the water supply and electricity connections. That, the water supply has been disconnected on 15th October, 2025. That, MSEDCL, has informed that the electricity supply, would be disconnected, once MSEDCL is given a 24 hours prior notice of the scheduled date of demolition. That, the Supreme Court has observed in the matter Bhavnagar University V/s Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt Ltd & Others, that a statement of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the order are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements or recording of facts. The Learned Advocate for the Thane Municipal Corporation, states that, the order dated 5 th December 2022 in PIL 111 of 2021, is in respect of the said parties/ structures. That, similar grounds are raised by the Review Petitioner, in Writ Petition No 5824 of 2025. 4/11 ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:41:11 :::
Mahesh RPW-34493-2025
5. Heard the parties. By an order dated 16 th September, 2025, it was directed that, the Writ Petition No 5824 of 2025 should not be place before the Bench of which, Justice G.S.Kulkarni, is a member. The matters were de-tagged. The order indicates that, the arguing counsel himself had appeared in the matter on 16th September 2022. This is a clear attempt to mislead the court. On 22 nd September 2025, Review Petitioner, withdrew IA No 1184 of 2025, filed for intervention, in Writ Petition No 13714 of 2018, knowing fully well, that the Writ Petition No 5824 of 2025 and Writ Petition No 13714 of 2018, would not be heard together. In my opinion, the conduct and act of the Review Petitioner, in withdrawing the Interim Application on 22nd September, 2025, after the directions/order dated 16th September 2025, clearly indicates the fact that, the Review Petitioner had made up its mind to independently pursue Writ Petition No 5824 of 2025. That was, clearly, a well thought of and well informed decision.
6. The water supply was disconnected on 15th October 2025. The Writ Petition No 5824 of 2025, was listed on 8th October, 2025. Simultaneously, the Review Petitioner, preferred a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s) 28698/2025, which was listed on 8th October, 2025, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The same was withdrawn, on instructions, with liberty to move this Court 5/11 ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:41:11 ::: Mahesh RPW-34493-2025 by way of review. It is pertinent to note, that by 8 th October, 2025, the Review Petitioner was already aware that the process for disconnection of water and electricity was initiated, as a step towards implementation of the order dated 22nd October, 2025. Still, the Review Petitioner choose not to file the Review Petition till 16th October 2025, the penultimate day, before the ensuing Diwali vacations of this Court. No steps are taken from 8 th October, 2025 to 16th October, 2025 i.e. 7 working days. No explanation is given for the inaction. The Review Petitioner did not move/mention or seek production on an urgent basis, of Writ Petition No 5824 of 2025 which was listed at Sr. No 21 on 8 th October, 2025 before this Court ( Corum:- Ravindra V Ghuge & Ashwin D Bhobhe JJ). There was, for reasons best known to the Review Petitioner, a complete silence and inaction from 8th October 2025 to 16th October, 2025. As noted above, the same was, in the face of the threat of demolition/notice of disconnection of water and electric supply. Still, the Review Petitioner, did not move the Court. This, according to me, was a deliberate, intentional inaction on the part of the Review Petitioner, done to avoid the regular court. Further, no liberty is even sought to move the vacation court. The record indicates, that no steps are taken to move the regular court. The contention that, the Review Petitioner, was not heard, is in fact incorrect. The record indicates, that the Review Petitioner was 6/11 ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:41:11 ::: Mahesh RPW-34493-2025 aware of the orders dated 16 th September 2025 and 22nd October 2025.The opportunity/right of a hearing in Writ Petition No 13714 of 2018, was given up by the Review Petitioner, by an informed decision to pursue Writ Petition No 5824 of 2025.
7. As regards to the order dated 26 th August, 2019, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A No. 5370 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos 5364 - 5369 /2019, the said ground is already raised in Writ Petition No 5824 of 2025, which petition is pending since March 2025.
8. The Learned Advocate for the Review Petitioner, relied upon the following Judgments:
(i) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and anr. Vs. Pratibha Industries and Ors., [Paragraph 12] to submit that, this Court, can exercise the powers of review, to prevent the miscarriage of justice.
(ii) Prem Agarwal Vs. Mohan Singh & Ors reported in 2025 SCC Onlline SC 2189[Paragraph 15] to submit that act of the Court shall prejudice no one.
(iii) Distributors (Baroda) Private Limited V/s. Union of India reported in (1986), 1 SCC 43 [Paragraph 2] to submit that, the error committed vide order dated 22nd September, 2025 should not be perpetuated, and 7/11 ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:41:11 ::: Mahesh RPW-34493-2025 be rectified.
(iv) Olga Tellis and Ors. Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors [Paragraph No.40] to submit that, the actions of the authorities should be reasonable.
The said judgments are on general principles of law, and in the facts of the present case, not useful at this stage.
9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Tamilnadu Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr reported in (1997) 9 SCC 736 , has observed that, it is not good practice have different lawyer appearing in the original application and different lawyer in the review petition. The said observation, is aptly applicable to the facts of this case, as different advocates, are appearing in the matter.
10. The Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 17th December,2024 in the matter of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya & Anr Vs. U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors reported in 2024 Live Law (SC) 1009, has observed as under:
"20. In the ultimate analysis, we are of the opinion that construction(s) put up in violation of or deviation from the building plan approved by the local authority and the constructions which are audaciously put up without any building planning approval, cannot be encouraged. Each and every construction must be made scrupulously 8/11 ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:41:11 ::: Mahesh RPW-34493-2025 following and strictly adhering to the Rules. In the event of any violation being brought to the notice of the Courts, it has to be curtailed with iron hands and any lenience afforded to them would amount to showing misplaced sympathy. Delay in directing rectification of illegalities, administrative failure, regulatory inefficiency, cost of construction and investment, negligence and laxity on the part of the authorities concerned in performing their obligation(s) under the Act, cannot be used as a shield to defend action taken against the illegal/unauthorized constructions. That apart, the State Governments often seek to enrich themselves through the process of regularisation by condoning/ratifying the violations and illegalities. The State is unmindful that this gain is insignificant compared to the long-term damage it causes to the orderly urban development and irreversible adverse impact on the environment. Hence, regularization schemes must be brought out only in exceptional circumstances and as a onetime measure for residential houses after a detailed survey and considering the nature of land, fertility, usage, impact on the environment, availability and distribution of resources, proximity to water bodies/rivers and larger public interest. Unauthorised constructions, apart from posing a threat to the life of the occupants and the citizens living nearby, also have an effect on resources like electricity, ground water and access to roads, which are primarily designed to be made available in orderly development and authorized activities. Master plan or the zonal development cannot be just individual centric but also must be devised keeping in mind the larger interest of the public and the environment. Unless the administration is streamlined and the persons entrusted with the implementation of the act are held accountable for their failure in performing statutory obligations, violations of this nature would go unchecked and become more rampant. If the officials are let scot-free, they will be emboldened and would continue to turn a nelson's eye to all the illegalities resulting in derailment of all 9/11 ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:41:11 ::: Mahesh RPW-34493-2025 planned projects and pollution, disorderly traffic, security risks, etc"
11. The Supreme Court in its order dated 30 th April, 2025 in the matter of Kaniz Ahmed Vs. Sabuddin & Ors Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.12199-12200/2025, has observed that:
" 5. In one of our recent pronouncements, in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others reported in 2024 INSC 990, we have made ourselves very explicitly clear that each and every construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the rules and regulations. In the event of any violation, being brought to the notice of the courts, the same should be dealt with iron hands and any leniency or mercy shown to the person guilty of unauthorised construction would amount to showing misplaced sympathy. ...."
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that her client be given one chance to pray for regularization of the unauthorized construction. We do not find any merit in such submission. A person who has no regards for the law cannot be permitted to pray for regularization after putting up unauthorized construction of two floors. This has something to do with the rule of law. Unauthorized construction has to be demolished. There is no way out. Judicial discretion would be guided by expediency. Courts are not free from statutory fetters. Justice is to be rendered in accordance with law. We are at pains to observe that the aforesaid aspect has not been kept in mind by many State Governments while enacting Regularization of Unauthorized Development Act based on payment of impact fees.
7. Thus, the Courts must adopt a strict approach while dealing with cases of illegal construction and should not readily engage themselves in judicial regularization of buildings erected without requisite permissions of the competent authority. The need for 10/11 ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:41:11 ::: Mahesh RPW-34493-2025 maintaining such a firm stance emanates not only from inviolable duty cast upon the Courts to uphold the rule of law, rather such judicial restraint gains more force in order to facilitate the well-being of all concerned. The law ought not to come to rescue of those who flout its rigours as allowing the same might result in flourishing the culture of impunity. Put otherwise, if the law were to protect the ones who endeavour to disregard it, the same would lead to undermine the deterrent effect of laws, which is the cornerstone of a just and orderly society.[See: Ashok Malhotra v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, W.P.
(c) No. 10233 of 2024 (Delhi High Court)]."
12. In view of the conduct of the Review Petitioner, in not taken timely and immediate actions during the period of 8 th October, 2025 to 16th October, 2025, to file the Review Petition, and/or not pursue the Writ Petition No 5824 of 2025, and after considering the aforesaid judgments and orders of the Supreme Court, I am not inclined to grant any interim relief, at this stage. I deem it fit, to simplicitor adjourn the matter, for being listed before regular court taking up the assignment.
13. Stand Over to 3rd November, 2025.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) 11/11 ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2025 22:41:11 :::