Bombay High Court
RAMJANAM DAYARAM VISHWAKARMAversusTHE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE MUMBAI SUBURBAN
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The authority did not err in declaring the petitioner ineligible, and the petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramjanam Dayaram Vishwakarma, challenged an order of the Grievance Redressal Committee that dismissed his appeal against the Additional Collector’s decision declaring him ineligible for benefits under a road widening project. The petitioner claimed his structure was residential and argued that he had mistakenly submitted documents indicating commercial use. The court examined the petitioner’s response to a 2018 notice, which included a shop certificate, electricity bills, Industry Aadhar, GST registration, and income tax returns, indicating commercial activity. The court found that the petitioner’s submissions did not merit consideration and that the authority correctly held him ineligible. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of substance.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner was eligible for benefits under the Road Widening Project.
- Whether the authority erred in classifying the petitioner’s structure as commercial rather than residential.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- eligibility
- road widening project
- encroachment
- municipal authority
- residential vs commercial
- grievance redressal committee
- appeal dismissed
Judgment
8-WP3183-2026.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3183 OF 2026
Ramjanam Dayaram Vishwakarma ...Petitioner
Versus
The Grievance Redressal Committee,
Mumbai Suburban …Respondent
Mr. Shaikh Usman, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rakesh Pathak, AGP for Respondent – State.
Mr. Abhijit Aher, i/b Tanaya Goswami, for the SRA.
SANTOSH
SUBHASH Mr. Sachin Vajale, i/b Komal Punjabi, and Pallavi Tahkar, for
KULKARNI Respondent No.3-BMC.
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.09.03
10:55:41 +0530 CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED: 31st AUGUST, 2026
Oral Order:-
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 6 th June,
2025 passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee, Mumbai
Suburban, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner
against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Additional
Collector (Encroachment/Removal) Eastern Suburban, thereby
dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the
determination by the Competent Authority that the petitioner
was ineligible for the benefits admissible under the Road
Widening Project, came to be dismissed.
1/3
8-WP3183-2026.DOC
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
structure is in fact residential. The petitioner under an incorrect
impression about the nature of the inquiry and the legal
implications thereof had submitted documents which indicated
that the structure was put to commercial use. Attention of the
Court was invited to the notice dated 19 th September, 2018
issued by the Municipal Assistant Engineer (N-Ward),
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, wherein it was, inter
alia, mentioned that the petitioner had constructed a residential
structure without obtaining the permission of the Planning
Authority and the said structure was causing obstruction in the
Road Widening Project.
4. The submissions canvassed on behalf of the petitioner do
not merit any countenance. The response dated 1 st October,
2018 by the petitioner to the said notice makes the nature of the
structure explicitly clear. It was, inter alia, contended by the
petitioner that the shop premises was in existence since prior to
1991. Alongwith the said response, the petitioner had forwarded
copies of the certificate issued under the Bombay Shops and
Establishments Act, 1948, new and old electricity bills, copy of
Industry Aadhar, GST Registration and Income Tax Returns. It
defies comprehension that if the structure was residential, the
2/3
8-WP3183-2026.DOC
petitioner was required to apply to and obtain the aforesaid
certificates/registrations. The Authority has, thus, committed
no error in declaring the petitioner ineligible.
5. The petition being devoid of substance stands dismissed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
3/3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.