Bombay High Court
SANJVANI SHARAD JOSHIversusGRIEVANCE REDCRESSAL COMMITTEE ADMINISTRATIVE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The GRC’s order was set aside because it failed to record independent reasons, and the appeal was restored for fresh adjudication by the GRC.
Summary
The petitioner challenged an order dated 1 April 2026 passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) which had dismissed an appeal against an order of the Appellate Authority dated 27 October 2025. The petitioner argued that the GRC had not recorded any independent reasons and merely endorsed the Appellate Authority’s findings without a fresh evaluation. The respondents contended 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 reasoning and failed to fulfil its duty to examine the legality, propriety and correctness of the Appellate Authority’s 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, without deciding on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether the Grievance Redressal Committee complied with the requirement to record independent reasons while deciding an appeal against the Appellate Authority’s order.
- Whether the impugned GRC order is liable to be set aside for lack of reasons.
- Whether the appeal should be remitted to the GRC for a fresh, reasoned decision.
Subjects
- grievance redressal committee
- appellate authority
- reasoned order
- procedural fairness
- judicial review
- remand
- civil procedure
Judgment
26-WP10961-2026.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10961 OF 2026
Sanjivani Sharad Joshi ...Petitioner
Versus
Grievance Redcressal Committee
Administrative And Ors …Respondents
Mr. Hrishikesh Nabar, for the Petitioner
Ms. Tanya Goswami, for the SRA in all WP.
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 1 st April,
2026 passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) in
Appeal No. 242/2025 against an order dated 27 th October, 2025
SANTOSH passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the appeal preferred
SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by by the petitioner, came to be dismissed.
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.09.09
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
26-WP10961-2026.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:
“11(c) ……. 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
26-WP10961-2026.DOC
recorded by the Appellate Authority and then arrived 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. 726/2025
stands quashed and set aside.
(iii) Appeal No. 242/2025 stands restored to the file of GRC.
3/4
26-WP10961-2026.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…