Bombay High Court
CHANDRAKALA VITHAL SAUDHALKARversusGRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- FARHAN PARVEZ DUBASH
Holding
The writ petition does not survive because the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal, and it is therefore disposed.
Summary
Petitioner Chandrakula filed a writ petition challenging the decision of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) that held her ineligible for a benefit. The High Court noted that the petitioner had earlier filed a fresh application before the Deputy Collector and the Competent Authority of the SRA for eligibility determination. The SRA subsequently issued an order on 9 April 2026 declaring the petitioner ineligible and informing her of the right to appeal. No counsel appeared for the petitioner at the hearing. The Court held that, since the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal, the writ petition could not continue and therefore dismissed the petition without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition remains maintainable after the SRA has decided the petitioner is ineligible and provided a remedy of appeal
Subjects
- writ petition
- eligibility
- Slum Rehabilitation Authority
- appeal
- petition dismissed
- procedural remedy
Judgment
908.WP/347/2025
Chandrakala Vs. GRC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
AMOL ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PREMNATH
JADHAV
Digitally signed by
AMOL PREMNATH
WRIT PETITION NO. 347 OF 2025
JADHAV
Date: 2026.04.15
21:54:34 +0530
Chandrakala Vithal Saudhalkar .. Petitioner
V/s.
Grievance Redressal Committee, Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents
_______________________________________
None for the Petitioner.
Ms. Gauri Sawant, learned AGP for Respondent nos. 1 & 2.
Ms. Arushi Yadav i/b. Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal for Respondent no. 3 – SRA.
_______________________________________
CORAM : FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.
DATE : 10th APRIL 2026
P. C.:
1. By an order dated 9th March 2026, this Court had noted that a
fresh application was filed by the Petitioner before the Deputy Collector and
Competent Authority of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) for deciding
his eligibility.
2. Today, Ms. Arushi Yadav, learned Counsel who appears on behalf
of the Respondent no. 3 – SRA, tenders a copy of the order dated 9 th April
2026 passed by the SRA on the Petitioner’s Application. The copy of the
order dated 9th April 2026 has been taken on record and marked-‘X’ for
identification. A perusal of this order reveals that the Petitioner has been
held to be ineligible. The said order further records that the Petitioner, if
Page 1 of 2
-------------------------------------
Order dated 10th April 2026
908.WP/347/2025
Chandrakala Vs. GRC
aggrieved has a remedy of an Appeal.
3. None appears for the Petitioner.
4. Considering this, the present Writ Petition does not survive and
is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. )
Ajay Jadhav
Page 2 of 2
-------------------------------------
Order dated 10th April 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.