Bombay High Court
GURUNANAK ROMELL LLPversusADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (ENC/REM) AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY WESTERN SUBURBAN
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- GAUTAM A ANKHAD
Holding
The Court held that the appellate order was beyond jurisdiction and violated natural justice, and therefore stayed its operation while directing the petitioner to approach the Grievance Redressal Committee.
Summary
Gurunanak Romell LLP, a developer under a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, challenged an order dated 29 December 2023 by the Additional Collector (ENC/REM) and the Appellate Authority that included certain respondents in Annexure‑II of the scheme. The petitioner argued that the appellate authority lacked jurisdiction because no adjudication had been made by the Competent Authority under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, and that the order violated natural justice as no notice or hearing was afforded. The State contended that the petitioner could obtain relief from the Grievance Redressal Committee under the same Act. The Court observed that the order was indeed passed without clear notice and that the appellate jurisdiction was questionable in the absence of a prior competent authority decision. Consequently, the Court stayed the impugned order, directed the petitioner to approach the Grievance Redressal Committee within four weeks, and barred any coercive action pending the committee’s decision. All writ petitions were disposed with the parties’ rights kept open.
Issues considered
- The Appellate Authority had jurisdiction to direct inclusion of names in Annexure‑II without a prior order of the Competent Authority under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971.
- The principles of natural justice were violated as the petitioner was not given notice or an opportunity to be heard.
- Whether the petitioner should be directed to seek relief from the Grievance Redressal Committee as the appropriate statutory remedy.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Slum Rehabilitation Scheme
- Natural Justice
- Jurisdiction
- Appellate Authority
- Grievance Redressal Committee
- Maharashtra Slum Areas Act
- Stay Order
- Annexure‑II
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 474 OF 2026
Gurunanak Romell LLP …. Petitioner.
V/s
Additional Collector (ENC/REM)
and Appellate Authority, Western
Suburban, Mumbai and Others ….Respondents.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 483 OF 2026
Gurunanak Romell LLP …. Petitioner.
V/s
Additional Collector (ENC/REM)
and Appellate Authority, Western
Suburban, Mumbai and Others ….Respondents.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 484 OF 2026
Gurunanak Romell LLP …. Petitioner.
V/s
Additional Collector (ENC/REM)
and Appellate Authority, Western
Suburban, Mumbai and Others ….Respondents.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 490 OF 2026
Gurunanak Romell LLP …. Petitioner.
V/s
Additional Collector (ENC/REM)
and Appellate Authority, Western
Suburban, Mumbai and Others ….Respondents.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 516 OF 2026
Gurunanak Romell LLP …. Petitioner.
V/s
1/6
WP-474-26.doc bdp
Additional Collector (ENC/REM)
and Appellate Authority, Western
Suburban, Mumbai and Others ….Respondents.
Mr. Akash Rebello a/w Mr. Saurabh Chitnis, Mr. Nadeem Sharma, Mr.
Paras Gosar i/b Mr. Milind Nar, Advocates for the Petitioner in all the
above Writ Petitions.
Ms. Yashasree Raut i/b Mrs. Manisha Jagtap, Advocates for MHADA.
Mr. Rakesh Pathak, AGP for Respondent no.1-State in Writ Petition
No.474 of 2026.
Ms. Sheetal Malvankar, AGP for Respondent no.1-State in Writ Petition
No.483 of 2026.
Ms. Vrushali Kabre, AGP for Respondent no.1-State in Writ Petition
No.484 of 2026.
Ms. Varsha Sawant, AGP for Respondent no.1-State in Writ Petition
no.490 of 2026.
Ms. Nazia Sheikh, AGP for Respondent no.1-State in Writ Petition
no.516 of 2026.
CORAM : GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
DATE : 12TH JUNE, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The Petitioner is a developer implementing a Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme. The challenge in these petitions is to the order dated 29 th
December 2023 passed by Respondent no.1 – Additional Collector
(ENC/REM) and Appellate Authority, whereby the names of Respondent
no.4 in the respective petitions have been directed to be included in
2/6
WP-474-26.doc bdp
Annexure-II of Mateshwari Rahivasi Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihnirman
Sanstha. Pursuant to the impugned order, Respondent no.4 in Writ
Petition no.474 of 2026 has been declared eligible at serial no. 349,
Respondent no.4 in Writ Petition no. 483 of 2026 at serial no. 354,
Respondent no.4 in Writ Petition no. 484 of 2026 at serial no. 352,
Respondent no.4 in Writ Petition no.490 of 2026 at Serial no. 353 and
Respondent no.4 in Writ Petition no. 516 of 2026 at serial no. 347 of
Annexure-II.
2. Mr. Akash Rebello, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner,
submits that the impugned order is ex facie without jurisdiction and has
been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. According to
him, no notice of hearing was served upon the Petitioner and no
opportunity of being heard was granted before the impugned order came
to be passed. He further submits that Respondent no.4 had approached
Respondent no.1 in the absence of any adjudication or order passed by
the Competent Authority under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum
Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. It is
therefore contended that there was neither any cause of action nor any
jurisdiction for the Appellate Authority to entertain the proceedings and
pass the impugned order. In support of the above submissions, Mr.
Rebello relies upon the order dated 6th October 2025 passed by this Court
3/6
WP-474-26.doc bdp
in Gurunanak Romell LLP v. Additional Collector (ENC/REM) and
Appellate Authority, Western Suburban & Ors. (Writ Petition no.3178 of
2025), arising out of the very same Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. He
submits that in materially identical circumstances this Court found a
strong prima facie case in favour of the Petitioner and granted
appropriate protection. According to him, the present petitions stand on
the same footing.
3. On the other hand, the learned AGPs appearing for the State
oppose the petitions and submit that the Petitioner has an effective and
efficacious statutory remedy of approaching the Grievance Redressal
Committee under Section 35(1)(a) of the Act. According to them, all
contentions raised in the present petitions can appropriately be examined
by the said forum.
4. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material
placed on record. It is not in dispute that an order dated 6 th October 2025
has been passed by this Court in relation to the same Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme. Prima facie, the record indicates that the proceedings before the
Competent Authority were still pending and no final determination had
been made by the said authority. Despite this, Respondent no.4 appears
to have approached Respondent no.1 in the appellate jurisdiction, who
proceeded to pass the impugned order directing inclusion of the
4/6
WP-474-26.doc bdp
concerned persons in Annexure-II. A perusal of the impugned order,
particularly paragraph 2 at page 46 of the paper-book in Writ Petition no.
474 of 2026 does not clearly indicate whether notice of hearing was
served upon the Petitioner or whether the Petitioner was afforded an
opportunity of being heard before the order came to be passed.
Therefore, there is merit in the submission regarding violation of the
principles of natural justice. Further, if no adjudication had been
rendered by the Competent Authority, the very basis for invoking the
appellate jurisdiction of Respondent no.1 would not arise. At the same
time, the Petitioner has an alternate statutory remedy before the
Grievance Redressal Committee, which is competent to examine all
questions relating to the legality, validity and correctness of the
impugned order as well as the consequential inclusion of names in
Annexure-II. In the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to
permit the Petitioner to avail of the said remedy while ensuring that its
rights are adequately protected in the interregnum.
5. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to
the Petitioner to approach the Grievance Redressal Committee and
challenge the impugned order dated 29th December 2023 as well as the
consequential Annexure-II dated 12th January 2024. Such proceedings
shall be instituted within a period of four weeks from today. It is directed
5/6
WP-474-26.doc bdp
that until the proceedings before the Grievance Redressal Committee are
decided and for a period of thirty days from the date of written
communication of such decision to the Petitioner, no precipitative or
coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner on the basis of the
impugned order dated 29th December 2023. The impugned order shall
not be implemented against the Petitioner during the aforesaid period.
6. All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
The Grievance Redressal Committee shall decide the proceedings
independently, on their own merits and in accordance with law. All the
writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.
BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT
Digitally signed by
BHARAT
[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.]
DASHARATH
PANDIT
Date: 2026.06.15
11:37:13 +0530
6/6
WP-474-26.doc bdp
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.