Created by Fuzzy Cloud

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


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.