Bombay High Court
SUNIL SONU MOHITEversusGRIEVANCE REDCRESSAL COMMITTEE ADMINISTRATIVE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The GRC’s order dismissing the appeal without independent reasons was quashed and the appeal was restored for fresh hearing.
Summary
The petitioner Sunil Sonu Mohite challenged an order dated 7 April 2026 passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) which dismissed his appeal against an order of the Appellate Authority dated 27 October 2025. The petitioner contended that the GRC failed to record any independent reasons and merely endorsed the Appellate Authority’s findings, thereby violating the requirement of a reasoned order in appellate proceedings. The respondents argued that the tenement transfer was illegal and the GRC was justified in dismissing the appeal. The Court observed that the GRC’s order lacked any substantive reasoning and merely reiterated the lower authority’s view, which is insufficient for an appellate decision. Consequently, the Court set aside the GRC’s order, restored the appeal to the GRC’s file, and directed the GRC to rehear the matter and pass a reasoned order within six weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the Grievance Redressal Committee is obligated to record independent reasons when dismissing an appeal.
- Whether an order of the GRC lacking any reasoning is liable to be quashed.
- Whether the appeal should be remitted to the GRC for a fresh, reasoned decision.
Subjects
- Grievance Redressal Committee
- reasoned order
- appellate authority
- procedural fairness
- remand
- judicial review
- administrative law
Judgment
25-WP10936-2026.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10936 OF 2026
Sunil Sonu Mohite ...Petitioner
Versus
Grievance Redcressal Committee
Administrative And Ors …Respondents
Mr. Hrishikesh Nabar, for the Petitioner
Ms. Tanya Goswami, for the SRA.
Mr. Kishor Walanju, a/w Vishal Gaikwad, for the Intervener.
Mr. Y. S. Khochare, ‘B’ Panel Counsel a/w Mr.. Y. D. Patil, AGP
for the State/Respondent.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED: 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Oral Order:-
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 7 th April,
2026 passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) in
Appeal No. 265/2025 against an order dated 27 th October, 2025
SANTOSH
SUBHASH
KULKARNI passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the appeal preferred
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.09.09
by the petitioner, came to be dismissed.
20:06:29 +0530
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
GRC has not recorded reasons. GRC has simply observed that it
agrees with the reasons recorded by the Appellate Authority.
There is no independent evaluation of the grounds urged by the
1/4
25-WP10936-2026.DOC
petitioner in the appeal assailing the order passed by the
Appellate Authority.
4. Ms. Goswami, the learned Counsel for the SRA and Mr.
Patil, the learned Counsel for the intervener, initially opposed
the submissions canvassed on behalf of the petitioner. It was
urged that the tenement was transferred in favour of the
petitioner and other similarly situated persons illegally.
Therefore, the Authorities were justified in dismissing the
appeal.
5. From the perusal of the impugned order passed by the
GRC, the only reason which can be discerned from the
impugned order is to be found in paragraph 12 thereof, which
reads as under:
“12. ……. This committee avoids mentioning the findings of
the Learned Appellate Authority here again to avoid repetition
and prolixity. After carefully examining the provisions of law
as mentioned above, this Committee believes that the
Learned Appellate Authority has passed a reasoned order
and there is no need to interfere in the impugned order by
the hands of this Committee since the appellant failed to
establish the case as pleaded in the appeal.”
6. Evidently, the GRC has not at all considered the matter as
an appellate forum so as to examine the legality, propriety and
correctness of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The
GRC was expected to come in close quarters with the reasons
2/4
25-WP10936-2026.DOC
recorded by the Appellate Authority and then arrive at an
independent decision. Instead, the GRC has simply observed
that it endorses the reasons recorded by the Appellate
Authority.
7. The impugned order singularly lacks reasons. It is trite
when an appeal is provided against an order, the Appellate
Authority is required to record its independent reasons,
howsoever brief those reasons may be. It cannot simply dismiss
the appeal observing that it endorses the views of the lower
Authority.
8. Resultantly, the petition deserves to be allowed and the
appeal is required to be remitted back to the GRC for afresh
decision in accordance with law.
9. Hence, the following order:
:ORDER:
(i) The petition stands allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 27th October, 2025 passed by
the Additional Collector (E&R) in Appeal No. 728/2025
stands quashed and set aside.
(iii) Appeal No. 265/2025 stands restored to the file of GRC.
3/4
25-WP10936-2026.DOC
(iv) GRC is requested to hear and decide the appeal afresh
and pass a reasoned order.
(v) It is hereby made clear that this Court has not entered
into the merits of the matter and all contentions of all the
parties are kept open for determination by the GRC.
(vi) GRC is requested to make an endeavour to hear and
decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and,
preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of
communication of this order.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
4/4
Checking your session…