The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a contempt notice to the Municipal Commissioner of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for prima facie wilful disobedience of its time-bound directions issued on November 13, 2025 and July 28, 2026 for removal of encroachments from land earmarked for a BEST bus stand in Borivali, Mumbai.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana rejected the BMC's application seeking additional time to pass eviction order against the occupants and imposed costs of Rs 5 lakh on the municipal body. The Court restrained the civic body and the Maharashtra government from releasing the Commissioner's salary till the Supreme Court's directions are complied with.

“We are prima facie satisfied that the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai is guilty of committing contempt and is guilty of wilful breach and disobedience of the time bound directions that we have issued on two occasions in orders dated 13th November 2025 and 28th July 2026. Let him show cause as to why appropriate action will not be taken against him. Meanwhile, the Municipal Corporation and the State Government is restrained from releasing any monthly salary to the Commissioner or his personal staff. The application is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5 lakhs”, the Court ordered.

The Court strongly criticised BMC's conduct, repeatedly questioning why its officers not interested in complying with the Supreme Court's orders. The CJI suggested that the municipal body is colluding with the encroachers and warned that the concerned officers would be sent to jail if its directions are not complied with.

“They will understand the language of this order because they don't understand decent language. We will send him to jail and then he will understand the language of the Supreme Court order”, the CJI remarked after dictating the order.

When Senior Advocate RP Bhatt for BMC repeatedly requested the Court to record his statement that the civic body will comply with the Court's order within 30 days, the CJI sarcastically replied that the Court would issue an appreciation certificate to the BMC if it complied with the directions.

“We will be very thankful if they comply with our order. We will issue them appreciation certificate! Let them first do it. There is a complete, deliberate, mischievous breach of the direction issued by this court. And it is apparently in collusion and connivance with the encroachers whom these municipal authorities are protecting. You want us to write it today or we will write it after one week when we multiply the cost from Rs. 5 lakh to 20 lakh…We are not recording anything. We have already issued the direction. The time bound directions were there. That period has already gone”, the CJI said.

On July 28, 2026, the Supreme Court had directed the corporation to complete the work and remove the encroachments within three months. It clarified that civil court proceedings against notices issued to encroachers under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, would not prevent removal of unauthorised occupants, since the civil court had not imposed an interim stay.

Today, the Court rejected the application filed by the corporation seeking extensions to remove encroachments

“We have given enough time. Unless you want us today itself to pass a more punitive order against them. We are very clear. We are dismissing your application. We will not grant a single day. Let them sit in the midnight and pass the order. They must learn how to work”, the CJI said.

BMC is colluding with encroachers: Court questions delay in passing eviction orders

During the hearing, Bhatt submitted that BMC had issued show-cause notices to the occupants and heard them twice. He said that the occupants had subsequently filed documents and a final order on the notices is yet to be passed.

Bhatt said that the civil court had directed the authorities not to evict the occupants without hearing them and had kept the matter for November 26 to monitor compliance.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned why the hearing process had taken so long, and expressed disbelief over the explanation offered in the extension application that the concerned officer did not know Marathi and required English translations of Marathi documents.

“Have you seen your explanation why your hearing is delayed? Because you require translation of Marathi. If your Commissioner does not know Marathi…”, he said.

He referred to the affidavit filed on behalf of BMC by Dr. Praful Dinesh Tambe, questioning the explanation that the officer did not know Marathi.

“Your affidavit is by Dr. Praful Dinesh Tambe. Praful Dinesh Tambe says that he does not know Marathi and regional language. We are not satisfied with your explanation for extension of 30 days. What did the civil court say? That give them a hearing before passing the order. Without a hearing, no order will be passed. So why hearing is delayed? 'I don't know Marathi, I require translation.' And the officer is one Mr. Tambe, who doesn't know Marathi? Is that to be believed?”, Justice Bagchi asked.

The CJI questioned, “Or they were playing friendly match with these encroachers. Now they take hafta or monthly from them? This is what they do.” He also criticised Bhatt for defending the conduct of the concerned officers.

“That is the conduct of your officers and you are defending them as a senior counsel” the CJI remarked. He further said, “Whatever has happened in the civil court is with the blessings, collusion, connivance and criminal conspiracy of your officers. You want us to write everything, all these things, today in the order? Or you will please advise them to comply?”

The Court questioned why the BMC had not brought the Supreme Court's directions to the civil court's attention. The CJI questioned whether municipal officers deliberately secured an order from the civil court without disclosing the Supreme Court's directions.

“You procure an order from the civil court with your collusion and connivance without concealing the material facts and then take a defence before the Supreme Court,” the CJI remarked.

The bench repeatedly expressed displeasure that the municipal body appeared more willing to comply with directions issued by the civil court than those passed by the Supreme Court.

“You are more interested in complying with civil court order ignoring the Supreme Court order,” the CJI told Bhatt.

The CJI also remarked that the BMC officers were “extremely keen” to approach the civil court and the High Court but were “extremely reluctant” to comply with the Supreme Court's directions.

“But they are extremely reluctant to see the Supreme Court order. That is the respect you want to give. Now we have passed the order Mr. Bhatt and we have given enough time. Unless you want us today itself to pass a more punitive order against them. We are very clear. We are dismissing your application. We will not grant a single day. Let them sit in the midnight and pass the order. They must learn how to work”, he said.

Factual background

The dispute concerns approximately 5,800 sq m of land in Borivali, Mumbai, of which 3,400 sq m was earmarked for a BEST bus stand and administrative building. Under consent terms recorded on October 31, 2002, the Municipal Corporation was required to cooperate with Parag Construction in removing unauthorised occupants. Earlier contempt proceedings were disposed of in January 2012 after 15 structures occupied by 13 unauthorised occupants were demolished.

The dispute resurfaced when Parag Construction alleged that encroachments continue to obstruct the project, while BMC claimed that the developer had failed to hand over the bus stand and administrative building in completed condition.

On August 13, 2025, the Supreme Court directed Parag Construction to hand over vacant possession of 3,400 sq m earmarked for the bus stand to the Corporation, which was directed to complete the remaining construction and make the facility functional within three months of taking possession. Separately, it ordered BMC to continue efforts to remove encroachments in and around the land in accordance with law.

On November 13, 2025, the Supreme Court expressed prima facie concern that BMC was attempting to evade its responsibility to remove encroachments after claiming that certain occupants were lawful tenants. The Court directed the Municipal Commissioner to file a personal affidavit disclosing the occupants' particulars, eviction notices and replies, documents supporting tenancy or ownership claims, and inquiries undertaken to verify their genuineness.