MR. DINESH KAPIL TRIPATHIversusCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY AND ORS

                              Ingale                                                 9-wp-15286-23.odt



                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
         Digitally signed
URMILA   by URMILA
         PRAMOD                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PRAMOD   INGALE
         Date:
INGALE   2026.03.18
         19:33:24 +0530

                                              WRIT PETITION NO. 15286 OF 2023

                            Mr. Dinesh Kapil Tripathi                        … Petitioner
                                  Versus
                            Chief Executive Officer,
                            Slum Rehabilitation Authority and ors.           .… Respondents

                                                            ****
                            Mr. Sachin Hande, for the Petitioner.
                            Mr. D.R. Kawale, for Respondents no. 2 & 3-BMC.
                            Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal a/w Mr. Saurabh Pakale and Mr.Aatish
                            Tayade, for the Respondent-SRA.
                            Mr. N.C. Walimbe, Addl. GP for Respondent – State.
                            Officer- Mr. SunilParicha, (Colony Officer) G/N Ward present.
                                                            ****

                                                            CORAM :    M.S.KARNIK &
                                                                       S.M.MODAK, JJ.

                                                              DATE :   18th MARCH 2026

                            P.C. :


                            1.         Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.   The petitioner

                            seeks enforcement of the communication dated 07/03/2017-

                            Exhibit ‘A’ issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (‘SRA’, for

                            short) to the Assistant Commissioner G/N Ward, Municipal

                            Corporation of Greater Mumbai (‘the Corporation’, for short). The

                            SRA directed the Corporation to take action under Section 3E of

                            the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and


                                                             1
 Ingale                                                9-wp-15286-23.odt



Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (‘the Slum Act’).     The petitioner is a

Doctor by profession. The petitioner had entered into a transaction

with respondent no. 6 who was the original allottee. It is the

contention of the petitioner that there was a transaction with

respondent no. 6 in respect of the subject premises.       It is the

allegation of the petitioner that respondent no. 6 and original

owner / allottee one Mr. Jaiswal, has cheated the petitioner. On

the complaint made by the petitioner, since the respondent no. 6

and other persons have acted illegally, the SRA issued a

communication-Exhibit ‘A’ on 07/03/2017, which the petitioner

seeks the implementation of.


2.   We have heard learned counsel for the Corporation who

brought to our notice the aforesaid facts. It is further submitted

that at the instance of the petitioner, this petition should not be

entertained. However, we find that the SRA has already informed

the Corporation by the communication dated 07/03/2017 for

initiating appropriate action under Section 3E of the Slum Act. The

said communication needs to be implemented in accordance with

law unless there is any legal impediment.




                               2
 Ingale                                                 9-wp-15286-23.odt



3.   In such view of the matter, the Corporation is directed to take

appropriate action in accordance with law for the implementation

of the communication dated 07/03/2017 within a period of 6

months from today. Learned counsel for the Corporation submits

that, in fact, action was taken against the petitioner and some

other person. We are only directing that the communication dated

07/03/2017 be taken to its logical end within a period of 6 months

from today.


4.   The writ petition is disposed of.



(S.M.MODAK, J.)                               (M.S.KARNIK, J.)




                                3