SUNITA SUDHAKAR PARABversusSLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY THORUGH ITS CEO

                                                                         13 WP-3462-26.DOC

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 3462 OF 2026


                      Sunita Sudhakar Parab                                      ..Petitioner

                             Versus

                      Slum Rehabilitation Authority & ors.                …Respondents


                      Dr. Uday Warunjikar i/b Ms. Sadhna Yadav, for the Petitioner.

                      Ms. Rutuja Shedge i/b Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal, for
                           Respondent Nos. 1 & 3.

                      Mr. Chaitanya Chavan i/b Mr. Ankit Dubey, for Respondent
                           No. 4.

                      Ms. Anu C Kaladharan i/b Mr. Kanhaiya Yadav, for
                           Respondent No.5.

SAINATH                                           CORAM :       N. J. JAMADAR, J.
SANJAY
BODKHE                                            DATE     :    27th July 2026
Digitally signed by
SAINATH SANJAY
BODKHE
Date: 2026.07.28
15:15:21 +0530
                      Oral Order :-

                      1.     Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

                      2.     The challenge in this petition is to the following order,

                      dated 03rd July 2026 passed by the Chairman, Apex Grievance

                      Redressal Committee :-

                               2)   After hearing all parties matter stands close

                               for order, parties to Ale written arguments within

                               15 days if they so desire. No stay.



                      SAINATH, PA                         1/4
                                                 13 WP-3462-26.DOC



3.     Dr. Warunjikar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner,

submits that, on the one hand, the AGRC has not delivered the

judgment though the matter is closed for orders, and on the

other hand, the petitioner has been served with a notice dated

13th July 2026 that the Petitioner will be forcibly evicted.

4.     Copy of the notice is annexed at Exhibit R to the petition.

The said notice indicates that, the petitioner has been declared

eligible for the beneAt under the subject Slum Rehabilitation

Scheme.

5.     Apart from the relative merits of the claim of the parties,

this Court is more concerned with the decision making process.

The impugned order, extracted above, singularly lacks reason as

to why the AGRC declined to grant stay to the execution and

operation of the order impugned in the appeal before the AGRC.

It cannot be overemphasized that, reasons are the soul of the

decision making process. An order sans reasons, is not a

determination in the eyes of law.

6.     If the AGRC was not inclined to grant stay, it should have

recorded reasons, howsoever brief; so that the legality and

propriety thereof could be tested, should there be a challenge to

the said order. The absence of reasons denudes the impugned



SAINATH, PA                         2/4
                                                   13 WP-3462-26.DOC

order the essential character of quasi-judicial determination.

Thus, it cannot be sustained.

7.     The situation which thus obtains is that, the petitioner,

who does not know why stay is refused, and whose appeal is

awaiting verdict from AGRC, is threatened with the action of

forcible eviction.

8.     In these circumstances, the petition deserves to be

allowed.

9.     Hence, the following order :-

                               ::ORDER::

              i)     The Writ Petition stands allowed.

              ii)    The impugned order of “no stay” stands

              quashed and set aside.

              iii)   There shall be stay to the execution and

              operation of the order passed by the Appellate

              Authority till the Anal decision of the Appeal

              No.250/2026 by the AGRC. In the event, AGRC

              passes an order adverse to the interest of the

              petitioner, there shall be a further stay to the

              execution and operation of the order passed by

              the Appellate Authority for a period of one week

              thereafter.


SAINATH, PA                          3/4
                                                  13 WP-3462-26.DOC

              iv)   It is clariAed that, this Court has not

              entered into the merits of the matter and AGRC

              shall decide the Appeal on its own merits and in

              accordance with law.



                                           [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




SAINATH, PA                          4/4