ABDUL HALEEM SIDDIQUI vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT — WP/1953/2024

Case under Bombay Municipal Corporation Act Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 04th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020063712024

Filing Number

WP/6369/2024

Filing Date

22-Feb-2024

Registration No

WP/1953/2024

Registration Date

04-Apr-2024

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice A.S. Gadkari , Hon'ble Justice Kamal Khata

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice A.S. Gadkari , Hon'ble Justice Kamal Khata

Bench Type

Division

Category

LOCAL BODY MATTERS OTHER THAN ELECTION, LABOUR AND SERVICE ( 61 )

Sub-Category

Municipal Corporation ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

04-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bombay Municipal Corporation Act Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ABDUL HALEEM SIDDIQUI

    Adv. ASHOKA LAW FIRM

  2. 2.PRASHANT UMASHANKAR AZAD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT

    Adv. -,- 1123

  2. 2.THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY

    Adv. PUNJABI KOMAL RAJESH

  3. 3.THE ASSISTANT MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER K WEST WARD

    Adv. PUNJABI KOMAL RAJESH

  4. 4.GEHLOT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

    Adv. VINOD MISTRY AND CO

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice A.S. Gadkari,hon'ble Justice Kamal KhataView PDF

    The Bombay High Court disposed of the writ petition after the developer (Respondent No.4) agreed to execute a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement with the petitioners within six weeks, confirming their entitlement to 337 and 352 sq. ft. of carpet area in the proposed building. The court accepted this settlement, finding the petitioners' grievance resolved, and accordingly disposed of both the petition and the interim application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-May-2026

    -Due Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice A.S. Gadkari , Hon'ble Justice Kamal Khata

  4. 16-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice A.S. Gadkari,hon'ble Justice Kamal KhataView PDF

  5. 16-Apr-2026

    Due Admission - 1

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

  6. 12-Mar-2026

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

  7. 12-Mar-2026

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay J. Mantri

  8. 20-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay J. MantriView PDF

  9. 17-Dec-2024

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Justice Kamal Khata , Hon'ble Shri Justice M.S. Sonak

  10. 24-Sep-2024

    Hon'ble Justice Kamal Khata,hon'ble Shri Justice M.S. SonakView PDF

  11. 24-Sep-2024

    For Direction

    Hon'ble Justice Kamal Khata , Hon'ble Shri Justice M.S. Sonak

  12. 27-Aug-2024

    Hon'ble Justice Kamal Khata,hon'ble Shri Justice M.S. SonakView PDF

  13. 27-Aug-2024

    For Direction

    Hon'ble Justice Kamal Khata , Hon'ble Shri Justice M.S. Sonak

  14. 26-Aug-2024

    Hon'ble Justice Kamal Khata,hon'ble Shri Justice M.S. SonakView PDF

  15. 26-Aug-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  16. 22-Feb-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/1953/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court disposed of the writ petition after the developer (Respondent No.4) agreed to execute a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement with the petitioners within six weeks, confirming their entitlement to 337 and 352 sq. ft. of carpet area in the proposed building. The court accepted this settlement, finding the petitioners' grievance resolved, and accordingly disposed of both the petition and the interim application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case