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The petition may be withdrawn with liberty to approach the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee within four weeks.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
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.