The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has expressed dissatisfaction over the Nagpur Municipal Corporation’s (NMC) failure to act against illegal bridges and mud embankments allegedly built over a nullah flowing from Shankar Nagar towards Bajaj Nagar. A Division Bench of Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nivedita P Mehta granted the NMC one final week’s time to explain its stand and submit an affidavit. The directions came while hearing a criminal public interest litigation filed by Lalit Beniram Harode and others.

 

Senior Advocate Akshay Naik, appearing for the petitioners, referred to the court’s earlier order dated May 4, 2026. He pointed out that the court had already recorded that several hotel and lawn owners had illegally built bridges over the nallah to create access to their establishments. Naik submitted that these bridges and mud embankments have led to severe waterlogging in the area. He also argued that the unauthorised access could create law and order problems and pose a risk of untoward incidents. The petitioners told the court that despite the earlier observations and despite the NMC being made a party to the case, no action had been taken. According to them, the civic body had not even issued notices to the alleged violators. The Bench noted that the NMC had neither filed an affidavit nor explained why no action had been taken against the illegal constructions.

 

Calling it a last opportunity, the court directed the NMC to file an affidavit within one week. The affidavit must state what action has been taken or is proposed to remove the illegal bridges and mud embankments. It must also explain the steps taken against any illegal activities being carried out in the hotels and other establishments. Senior Advocate Firdos Mirza supported action against the illegal bridges and mud embankments but opposed action against the business establishments. The matter has been posted for further hearing on August 12. Meanwhile, an intervention application filed by occupiers of the land was disposed of after the petitioners stated that they had no grievance against them at present.