Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Order Date: 9 October 2026 (Reserved on 5 October 2026, Pronounced on 9 October 2026)

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – Ashwin Ashara and Daksha Ashara (husband and wife), members of Flat Nos. B‑19 and B‑20 of Bhanujyoti Co‑operative Housing Society Limited. Respondents – (1) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, (2) Asst. Municipal Commissioner (Ward Officer) P North Ward, (3) Asst. Engineer (Building & Proposal) P Ward, (4) Namo Realty Ventures LLP (developer), (5) Bhanujyoti Co‑operative Housing Society Limited, (6) M/S. Kabra & Associates (legal counsel).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ Petition (No. 1251 of 2024) under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of Certiorari, additional carpet area, amenities, parking spaces, and compensation/damages from the developer for alleged non‑fulfilment of the redevelopment agreement.
  • Background: A Redevelopment Agreement dated 16 September 2021 was executed between Namo Realty Ventures LLP, Bhanujyoti Society and 46 of the 48 society members. The petitioners opposed the redevelopment and refused to vacate their units. The developer invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, obtaining a direction on 21 March 2022 ordering the petitioners to hand over possession. An appeal under Section 37 was filed but withdrawn on 21 April 2022. Redevelopment was completed on 28 October 2024; an Occupation Certificate was issued and all other members have taken possession of their new flats.
  • Petitioners’ Claims: Alleged large‑scale fraud and misappropriation of funds; the carpet area of the newly constructed flats is less than promised; promised amenities and car parking spaces were not provided; seek additional area and monetary compensation.
  • Respondents’ Submissions: The petition is misconceived, attempting to convert a private contractual dispute into a writ proceeding. No breach of statutory duty by municipal authorities; the developer has issued transit‑rent cheques which petitioners have not encashed; claims lack merit and must be pursued through ordinary civil remedies.
  • Legal Precedents Cited: Petitioners relied on Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra (2020) 9 SCC 356 and Rajani Dattaram Tanawade v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (2023) SCC OnLine Bom 2313. Respondents relied on Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Imanuel (1969) 1 SCC 585.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the petition seeking a writ of Certiorari is not maintainable because the dispute is purely private and does not involve a public duty or statutory breach by the municipal authorities.
  • A writ of Mandamus cannot be issued against a private developer, and the writ jurisdiction cannot substitute ordinary civil remedies.
  • Consequently, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs, and the rule is discharged.

Topics: Real Estate Redevelopment, Writ Jurisdiction