ABU TALHA IFTEKAR KHAN Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Not on Board. Mentioned by way of filing praecipe dtd. 17/1/2026. Perused the praecipe.

(2.) Heard Mr. Thorat, learned Advocate for Appellant / Applicant.

(3.) The prayer for ad-interim relief has been rejected by order dtd. 9/1/2026. The said order is appended at page Nos.31 and 32. If it is perused, it is prima facie seen that Appellant is already having an authorised structure but allegation in the impugned notice dtd. 27/9/2025 under Sec. 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short 'the said Act') is that he has made an unauthorised extension to the structure which was used by him as a lodging and boarding house. There is finding in the order that Appellant has not submitted any documents to support his contention like the sanctioned plan and plan issued by the Corporation etc and therefore the Designated Officer has come to the conclusion which has been accepted by the Court for refusal of ad-interim relief. The Corporation has sought time for filing Reply and the Court has held that ad-interim relief cannot be granted. Considering the above limited propositions, ad-interim relief has been refused.