‘A message loud and clear’: Here’s why Bombay High Court imposed costs of Rs 11 on two senior BMC officials

What was the case?

• On December 23, 2025, a division bench of the Bombay High Court came down heavily on the BMC, observing that the case was “one more example” of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai “practically ignoring the order of the High Court and showing scant respect.”
• The bench referred to an order passed by a single judge on August 5, 2024, which recorded that the corporation had initiated action against an unauthorised structure and that the aggrieved party could adopt remedies if the corporation’s order was adverse.
• However, when the matter was examined, the court found that although a “speaking order” dated August 10, 2024, had been passed, no further steps had been taken to demolish the structure as indicated in the operative portion of that order.
• Expressing displeasure, the court directed the assistant commissioner and designated officer of ‘A’ ward, to remain personally present and explain his conduct.
• On December 24, 2025, after the officer, Jaydeep More, appeared in court and no satisfactory explanation was offered for the inaction, the bench directed the municipal commissioner to initiate appropriate action against him for failure to discharge his duties.

Court’s observations

• When the matter came up again on February 9, 2026, the bench made the following observations:
• The advocate appearing for the corporation produced the original file before us. She had prepared a report for transmission of the order dated December 24, 2025 (directing action against the officer) on December 26, 2025.
• On December 30, 2025, the file was dispatched to the deputy municipal commissioner (zone-I), who merely signed the order on January 8, 2026 (nine days later).
• Thereafter, the file reached the additional municipal commissioner (city), who signed the same on January 27, 2026 (19 days later).
• The municipal commissioner promptly passed an order on January 28, 2026, directing the issuance of a show-cause notice.
• We appreciate the expediency shown by the Municipal Commissioner, and the advocate. However, we find that the matter was delayed on account of delayed action at the desks of the deputy municipal commissioner (zone-I) and the additional municipal commissioner (city).
• We have recorded in our order dated December 23, 2025, that municipal corporations are taking the orders of the high court casually and are not initiating action.
• In this case, the single judge had noted that the corporation had initiated action. Due to inaction on the part of the corporation in taking the action to a logical end, the petitioners had to approach this court.
• The same corporation, within a span of six months, has overlooked the orders of both the single judge as well as the division bench.