Bombay High Court

SURYAKUMAR GAURISHANKARN KANOJIAversusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI, MUMBAI, HEAD OFFICE.

Decided: 1 September 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The order deleting the petitioners' names from Annexure‑II without granting them a hearing is invalid and must be set aside, with the respondents directed to provide a hearing and consider their inclusion.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ under Article 226 seeking mandamus to compel the Municipal Corporation and other respondents to disclose records related to the re‑verification of Supplementary Annexure‑II of a slum scheme and to set aside an order that declared them ineligible without a hearing. The Court observed that the order deleting the petitioners' names from Annexure‑II was passed without affording them an opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the order could not be acted upon. The respondents, through counsel, agreed to provide the petitioners a hearing and to decide on their inclusion in Annexure‑II within three weeks. The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondents to comply with the hearing and appropriate orders, and awarded no costs.

Issues considered

Whether the order deleting the petitioners' names from Annexure‑II without a hearing violates the principles of natural justice.
Whether the High Court can direct the respondents to disclose the re‑verification records and the impugned order under Article 226.
Whether the petitioners may amend the petition after the issuance of the ineligibility order.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 226

Subjects

Article 226
Writ of Mandamus
Natural Justice
Right to be Heard
Administrative Law
Slum Scheme
Annexure II
Ineligibility Order

Judgment

Digitally
signed by
PRAJAKTA
901-WP 3611-25.DOC
PRAJAKTA SAGAR
SAGAR VARTAK
VARTAK Date:
2026.09.02
16:59:18
+0530

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 3611 OF 2025

Suryakumar Gaurishankaru Kanojia & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents
_________

Mr. Amogh Singh with Mr. Santosh Pathak and Mr. Deepesh Kadam i/b. Law
Origin for Petitioner.
Mr. Prakhar Tandon with Ms. Rutuja Shedge i/b. Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal for
Respondent/SRA.
Mr. Joel Carlos with Ms. Pushpa Yadav for Respondent/BMC.
Mr. Noorain Patel i/b. Diamondwala & Co. for Respondent No.6.
_________

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATE: 01 SEPTEMBER 2026.

P.C.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed

praying for the following substantive reliefs:-

“a) This Hon'ble Court may allow the present Petition;

b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or
any other appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the
Respondent No.1 and 2 to disclose and/or produce the records and
proceeding with respect to the re-verification of the Supplementary
Annexure - II dated 13th August, 2019 of the said subject slum scheme;
(Exhibit-B]

c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or
any other appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the
Respondent No.1 and 2 to disclose the Impugned undisclosed order
declaring the Petitioners as ineligible as per the Affidavit in Reply undated,
July, 2024 of Respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No. 7443 of 2023 in which
the Petitioners were not party to the said petition and upon production of
the said order/report the same may be quash and set aside; (Exh. "A")

d) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the Petitioners to carry

Page 1 of 2
01 September 2026
901-WP 3611-25.DOC

amendment in the present petition after receipt of the Order of ineligibility
from the Respondent No.1, 2 and 3 for the said subject slum scheme for
challenging the same.”

2. We find that, in passing the said order, the petitioners were not granted an

opportunity of being heard. Hence, the said order cannot to be acted upon. The

petitioners have already made representations dated 23 January 2025 and 18

March 2025 (Exhibit-D and Exhibit-E, page 63 and 78 of the paper-book,

respectively) seeking redressal of their grievance and inclusion of their names in

Annexure-II after being afforded an opportunity of hearing.

3. Mr. Carlos, learned counsel for the municipal corporation/respondent

nos.1 to 3, on instructions, states that the order by which the petitioners’ names

were deleted from Annexure II is being provided to the petitioners. He further

states that, in respect of the representations made by the petitioners on 23 January

2025 and 18 March 2025, the petitioners will be granted an opportunity of

hearing and appropriate orders will be passed on the petitioners’ prayer for

inclusion of their names in Annexure II. Let the entire exercise be completed

within a period of three weeks from today. All contentions of the parties in that

regard are expressly kept open.

4. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

(Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

Page 2 of 2
01 September 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.