Bombay High Court
WP/4904/2026 of JAGADISH MALLIKARJUN PATIL Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT. AND ORS. on 6 October 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4904 OF 2026 Jagadish Mallikarjun Patil ...Petitioner Versus State Of Maharashtra Thr. Urban Development Dept. And Others ...Respondents —————— Mr. Tanaji
55-WP-4904-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4904 OF 2026
Jagadish Mallikarjun Patil
...Petitioner
Versus
State Of Maharashtra Thr. Urban Development Dept. And Others
...Respondents
——————
Mr. Tanaji Mhatugade - Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. R. S. Pawar - AGP for the Respondent-State ——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : October 06, 2026.
P. C. :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. By the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to forthwith grant permission to the Petitioner under Section 22 (1) of the Maharashtra Slum (Improvement, Abolition and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, after hearing the parties, to institute a suit for eviction against the wilful defaulter of the Petitioner.
2. Perusal of the record would indicate that, pursuant to the application iled by the Petitioner on 27.12.2023, a hearing was ixed on 29.12.2023. It is, therefore, evident that the Corporation is proceeding SG Punde 1 of
55-WP-4904-2026.doc with the said application. The relief sought by the Petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2/Corporation to grant permission is, therefore, clearly misconceived.
3. A writ of mandamus can be issued where there is a failure on the part of a public authority to perform a public duty. In the present case, no such failure on the part of the Corporation is demonstrated.
4. In the present case, we ind that the Corporation has taken cognizance of the application iled by the Petitioner and is proceeding with the same. Therefore, there is no failure on the part of the Respondent No. 2/ Corporation to perform its statutory duties so as to warrant issuance of a writ of mandamus.
5. Resultantly, the Petition stands disposed of. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] SG Punde 2 of