AI Image Used For Representational Purpose Only
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has directed two senior officers of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (BMC) to pay Rs 11 each from their salaries for delay in initiating action against a ward officer who failed to demolish an unauthorised structure in Fort. The division bench of Ravindra Ghuge and Abhay Mantri said the token cost was meant to send a message that court orders must be acted upon “with promptitude”.
What is the case?
The dispute concerns an unauthorised mezzanine floor in Kirti Chambers at Fort.Green Twig Estate Management Pvt Ltd, landlord of Kirti Chambers, had filed a suit seeking demolition of the tenant’s illegal structure.The suit was dismissed as no statutory notice had been issued to the BMC.The landlord appealed before the high court.On August 5, 2024, after recording that the BMC had initiated action, the appeal was withdrawn. However, since no demolition followed, the petitioners approached the high court again.On December 23, 2025, the court noted that though a speaking order dated August 10, 2024 had been passed, no effective steps were taken to bring the process to its logical end. The order had stated that if the tenant failed to raze the structure, the office of the Assistant Municipal Commissioner of ‘A’ Ward would do so.The court directed Assistant Municipal Commissioner Jaydeep More to remain present. On December 24, 2025, after it was submitted that the earlier order had not been complied with, the bench directed the corporation to initiate appropriate action against More for failure to discharge his duties. The petition was disposed of but kept for recording compliance on January 30, 2026.
What is the latest order?
When the matter came up on February 9, 2026, the court examined the original file produced by the corporation’s advocate.The bench recorded the following timeline:
- December 26, 2025: Report prepared for transmission of the December 24 order.
- December 30, 2025: File dispatched to Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Zone-I) Chanda Jadhav.
- January 8, 2026: Jadhav signed the order — nine days later.
- January 27, 2026: Additional Municipal Commissioner (City) Ashwini Joshi signed it — 19 days later.
- January 28, 2026: Municipal Commissioner Bhushan Gagrani promptly directed issuance of a
show-cause notice . - January 30, 2026: Show-cause notice issued to Jaydeep More — the same day the petition was listed for compliance.
The judges noted that the delay occurred “at the desks” of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Zone-I) and the Additional Municipal Commissioner (City).
Court’s observations
The bench appreciated the expediency shown by the municipal commissioner and the corporation’s advocate. However, it expressed concern over institutional delay.The court recalled that in its December 23, 2025 order, it had already observed that municipal corporations were taking high court orders casually and not initiating action in a timely manner.It noted that:
- The learned Single Judge had earlier recorded that action had been initiated.
- Due to inaction in taking the process to its logical conclusion, the petitioners were compelled to file a fresh petition.
- Within six months, the same corporation had overlooked orders of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench.
- When asked whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the two senior officers, the corporation’s counsel submitted that they would tender an apology and sought instructions regarding costs.
What did the court order?
To send a clear message, the bench imposed costs of Rs 11 each on:Chanda Jadhav, Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Zone-I)Ashwini Joshi, Additional Municipal Commissioner (City)The amount is to be paid from their respective salary accounts and deposited with the Kirtikar Law Library within two days, since the order was dictated in open court.The petition, though disposed of earlier, has been listed again on March 6, 2026, for recording compliance as action is still not complete.
Key takeaways
The high court can impose personal costs on officials for delay in complying with judicial directions.Even token costs can serve as a judicial message on accountability and administrative discipline.The court distinguished between prompt action by the municipal commissioner and delays at intermediary administrative levels.The matter remains under judicial monitoring until full compliance is ensured.The order underscores that once a court directs action — especially in cases involving unauthorised constructions — the administrative machinery is expected to act without procedural stagnation or internal file delays.