The Bombay High Court has issued a notice to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) commissioner and two senior officers for failing to remove encroachments required for road widening in Mandala Village along the Sion-Trombay stretch. This action follows a November 18 order that granted the civic body six months to complete the task.
Court's Directive
Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad, on June 12, directed the commissioner to personally file a reply. The judges stated, “After considering the reply of the commissioner, we would decide as to whether contempt of court proceedings need to be initiated against respondent nos. 1 (BMC through the commissioner) to 3 under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.” The two officers are the assistant municipal commissioners of the M(E) and M(W) wards.
Background of the Case
A local resident approached the High Court last year, aggrieved by the BMC's inaction despite multiple complaints. In 1992, the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) donated land to the BMC to develop a 50-foot-wide road. In February 2016, a no-objection certificate (NOC) was granted for development on DAE land. Between 2010 and 2011, the BMC issued seven notices for removal of encroachments near the BARC compound wall. Some 192 trees were cut to facilitate road widening. However, the BMC only laid a 30-foot-wide road. The petition highlighted that due to encroachments, even a fire tender cannot enter the narrow road, a fact communicated by the fire department to the BMC. The petition urged the court to direct the BMC to complete the construction of the entire 50-foot-wide road.
Court's Observations
On November 18, 2025, the High Court granted the BMC 180 days, of which 90 days were to be used for removal of encroachments. The petition was disposed of and listed on June 12 for recording compliance. During the hearing, the judges noted that despite granting time and the BMC issuing notices in 2010-11 and cutting 192 trees, “nothing substantial has been done.” They lamented, “For the last 16 years, the corporation has apparently turned a blind eye to the encroachment, and despite our directions, hardly any steps have been taken.” They added that the BMC “did not even have courtesy towards the court” to move an application for an extension of time, stating, “Our order has been practically ignored.”
Arguments and Next Steps
The BMC’s advocate mentioned that a decision has been taken in principle for a 40-foot-wide road. However, the petitioner’s advocate, Harshad Sathe, argued that the land was given for a 50-foot road. The judges said, “In view of the above, we are compelled to suo motu issue notice” to the commissioner and assistant municipal commissioners, and posted the next hearing on July 7.
This development underscores the court’s serious view of the BMC’s non-compliance and the critical need for infrastructure improvements in the area.
