Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

ANGELO PATRICK DIASversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition may be withdrawn with liberty to approach the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee within four weeks.

Summary

The petitioners, Angelo Patrick Dias & Ors., filed a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing various respondents to compel the municipal authorities to enter into a permanent alternate accommodation agreement for a 325 sq.ft. unit in the redevelopment of the Shankar Lok Building in Mumbai. The respondents relied on a letter from the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) stating that the petitioners' name was absent from Annexure II, thereby denying any entitlement. The petitioner's counsel argued that the omission could be challenged before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (A.G.R.C.) and sought permission to withdraw the petition. The Court, after considering the submissions, allowed the withdrawal of the petition with liberty to approach the A.G.R.C. within four weeks. It also directed the A.G.R.C. to decide the matter within twelve weeks of filing. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, and no further orders remained pending.

Issues considered

  • The petitioners' entitlement to permanent alternate accommodation under the redevelopment scheme
  • The effect of the petitioners' omission from Annexure II on their rights
  • The appropriate forum for challenging the Annexure II omission

Subjects

  • writ of mandamus
  • redevelopment
  • alternate accommodation
  • Annexure II
  • Slum Rehabilitation Authority
  • Apex Grievance Redressal Committee

Judgment

          Digitally
          signed by
          RUPALI
RUPALI    RAJESH                                                       68-WP-4626-2024.doc
RAJESH    WAKODIKAR
WAKODIKAR Date:
          2026.08.20
          13:39:19
          +0530
                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 4626 OF 2024
                                        WITH
                   INTERIM APPLICATION (LODGING) NO. 30098 OF 2024
                                         IN
                            WRIT PETITION NO. 4626 OF 2024


                   Angelo Patrick Dias & Ors.                    ...Petitioners
                        Versus
                   The State of Maharashtra & Ors.               ...Respondents

                   Mr. Sujeet Kurup for the Petitioners.

                   Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) for the Respondent Nos.7 and 8 –
                   SRA).

                   Smt. Rita Joshi, A.G.P for the Respondent-State.

                   Mr. Nilesh Das for the Respondent Nos.10 to 13.

                   Mr. Bibhishan Sutar a/w Ms. Jyoti Mhatre i/b Adv.Komal Punjabi for
                   the Respondent – BMC.

                                       CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
                                               SANDESH D. PATIL JJ.
                                       DATE : 17th AUGUST, 2026


                   P.C. (PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J):


                   1.         By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of


    Wakodikar                                                                          1/3
                                                                68-WP-4626-2024.doc


            Mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 7 to further direct the

            respondent Nos.9 to 15 to enter into permanent alternate

            accommodation agreement with respect to the entitlement of the

            petitioner to a permanent alternate accommodation for an area of

            325 sq.ft. with respect to the said re-development of the said

            Shankar Lok Building on land admeasuring 856.10 sq.mtrs. bearing

            CTS No. 3147, 3150, 4150/1 to 9 of village Vakola, Kole-kalyan,

            Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400 055.


            2.          Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents relied

            upon a letter issued by the SRA to him where it is stated that the

            name of the petitioner is not found in the ‘Annexure II’ and therefore,

            they are not entitled for any relief.


            3.          Having gone through the copy of the letter in the Court,

            learned Counsel for the petitioner states that in such an event, he

            seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the aforesaid petition with

            liberty to file appropriate proceeding before the Apex Grievance

            Redressal Committee (A.G.R.C) challenging the ‘Annexure II’ itself


Wakodikar                                                                       2/3
                                                                68-WP-4626-2024.doc


            and such further orders as are required.


            4.         In light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel

            for the petitioner, we permit the petitioner to withdraw the aforesaid

            petition with liberty to initiate an appropriate proceeding before the

            A.G.R.C within a period of four weeks from today.


            5.         After the proceedings are initiated, the A.G.R.C to decide

            the same within a period of 12 weeks from the date from which the

            proceedings are presented before the A.G.R.C.



            6.         Petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the

            aforesaid observations.



            7.         In view of the disposal of the aforesaid petition, nothing

            survives for further consideration in the application pending therein.

            The same also stands disposed of.




            (SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)                          (M. S. KARNIK, J.)


Wakodikar                                                                        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.