Bombay High Court
MANISHA PRAMOD MALKARversusGRIEVANCE REDCRESSAL COMMITTEE ADMINISTRATIVE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The GRC's order was set aside for failing to record independent reasons, and the appeal was restored for a fresh, reasoned decision.
Summary
The petitioner challenged an order dated 7 April 2026 passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) which dismissed an appeal against an order of the Appellate Authority dated 27 October 2025. The petitioner argued 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 on appeal. The Court observed that the GRC's order contained no substantive reasoning and merely reiterated the lower authority's view, which is insufficient for an appellate forum. Consequently, the Court held that the GRC's order must be set aside and the appeal restored for a fresh, reasoned decision. The petition was allowed, the impugned order quashed, and the appeal remitted to the GRC with directions to decide it expeditiously.
Issues considered
- Whether the Grievance Redressal Committee complied with the statutory requirement to record independent reasons while disposing of an appeal.
- Whether the GRC's order can be quashed for lack of a reasoned decision.
- Whether the appeal should be remitted to the GRC for a fresh hearing and reasoned order.
Subjects
- grievance redressal committee
- reasoned order
- appellate authority
- judicial review
- quashing order
- remand
Judgment
27-WP10962-2026.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10962 OF 2026
Manisha Pramod Malkar ...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 Smt. Pooja Patil, AGP
in WP/10962/2026.
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. 267/2025 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
27-WP10962-2026.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
27-WP10962-2026.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. 747/2025
stands quashed and set aside.
(iii) Appeal No. 267/2025 stands restored to the file of GRC.
3/4
27-WP10962-2026.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…