GEETANJALI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT Advocate - GP OS — WP/2429/2026

Case under Mah. Housing & Area Devolopment Act Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020046492026

Filing Number

WP/4649/2026

Filing Date

07-Feb-2026

Registration No

WP/2429/2026

Registration Date

13-May-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

HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT ( 50 )

Sub-Category

Housing Area Development ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

05-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 27-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Mah. Housing & Area Devolopment Act Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GEETANJALI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED

    Adv. Tushar Goradia

  2. 2.RAJENDRA HONKAR KAMBLE

  3. 3.ISCO BUILDERS LLP

  4. 4.ISHWARLAL MOHABATRAM LAKHARA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT Advocate - GP OS

  2. 2.MUMBAI BUILDING REPAIRS AND RECONSTRUCTION BOARD(A MHADA UNIT)

  3. 3.MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI

  4. 4.RESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ENGIEER

  5. 5.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

  6. 6.THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER(ZONE II)

  7. 7.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(D

  8. 8.DIVISION

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

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

    Case Summary: Geetanjali Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. State of Maharashtra The Bombay High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the Executive Engineer's rejection of a housing redevelopment proposal citing alleged deficiencies, including insufficient tenant consents (below 51% requirement) and inclusion of private plots violating DCPR regulations. The court found prima facie evidence of 51% consents requiring verification and held that petitioners deserved an opportunity to respond to deficiencies before final rejection. The court directed petitioners to file a detailed representation with MBRRB's Chief Officer within two weeks, which the Chief Officer must decide within eight weeks after hearing both petitioners and the competing developer, independently and on merits without being influenced by the Executive Engineer's findings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-May-2026

    For Passing Order

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

  4. 04-May-2026

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

  5. 04-May-2026

    For Passing Order

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

  6. 28-Apr-2026

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

  7. 28-Apr-2026

    For Passing Order

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik , Hon'ble Shri Justice R. N. Laddha

  8. 21-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik,hon'ble Shri Justice R. N. LaddhaView PDF

  9. 21-Apr-2026

    For Admission

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

  10. 20-Apr-2026

    For Circulation

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

  11. 17-Apr-2026

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

  12. 17-Apr-2026

    For Circulation

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

  13. 08-Apr-2026

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

  14. 16-Mar-2026

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

  15. 16-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  16. 07-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/2429/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Geetanjali Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. State of Maharashtra The Bombay High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the Executive Engineer's rejection of a housing redevelopment proposal citing alleged deficiencies, including insufficient tenant consents (below 51% requirement) and inclusion of private plots violating DCPR regulations. The court found prima facie evidence of 51% consents requiring verification and held that petitioners deserved an opportunity to respond to deficiencies before final rejection. The court directed petitioners to file a detailed representation with MBRRB's Chief Officer within two weeks, which the Chief Officer must decide within eight weeks after hearing both petitioners and the competing developer, independently and on merits without being influenced by the Executive Engineer's findings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case