DOMNIC PAUL GODINHO vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS GOVERNMENT PLEADER Advocate - GP OS, ,GP OS,GP OS — WP/1918/2026

Case under Mah. Housing & Area Devolopment Act Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020013102026

Filing Number

WP/1310/2026

Filing Date

16-Jan-2026

Registration No

WP/1918/2026

Registration Date

17-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik , Hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. Modak

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik , Hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. Modak

Bench Type

Division

Category

TOWN PLANNING ( 39 )

Sub-Category

MHADA ( 6 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 10-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Mah. Housing & Area Devolopment Act Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DOMNIC PAUL GODINHO

    Adv. Jacqueline

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS GOVERNMENT PLEADER Advocate - GP OS, ,GP OS,GP OS

  2. 2.MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD(MHADA)

  3. 3.THE MUMBAI BUILDING REPAIRS AND RECONSTRUCTION BOARD(MHADA)

  4. 4.THE CHIEF OFFICER MUMBAI BUILDING REPAIRS AND RECONSTRUCTION BOARD (MHADA)

  5. 5.EXECUTIVE ENGIEER(M B R AND R BOARD)(MHADA)

  6. 6.RESIDENT ENGINEER(M B R AND R BOARD)(MHADA)

  7. 7.MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI

  8. 8.THE WARD OFFICER

  9. 9.THE SENIOR INSPECTOR OF POLICE

    Adv. GP OS

  10. 10.BADRI INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik,hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. ModakView PDF

    The Bombay High Court disposed of the writ petitions by directing the petitioners to file a detailed representation with MHADA within two weeks challenging their erroneous certification for redevelopment of Final Plot No. 140, which MHADA must decide within four weeks. The petitioners were granted three weeks to vacate the subject structure, during which they would receive rent; if their certification is rectified, they would be eligible for permanent alternate accommodation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    At 3.00 P.M.

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik , Hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. Modak

  4. 16-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/1918/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court disposed of the writ petitions by directing the petitioners to file a detailed representation with MHADA within two weeks challenging their erroneous certification for redevelopment of Final Plot No. 140, which MHADA must decide within four weeks. The petitioners were granted three weeks to vacate the subject structure, during which they would receive rent; if their certification is rectified, they would be eligible for permanent alternate accommodation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case