Bombay High Court
DUDHAM HARISHCHANDRA BHAGUJI AND ORSversusDEPUTY COLLECTOR SPECIAL CELL SRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- ADVAIT M SETHNA
Holding
The petition is disposed of, directing the petitioners to approach the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee for resolution of all issues.
Summary
The petitioners, Dudham Harishchandra Bhaguji and others, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging actions of the Deputy Collector Special Cell SRA and other respondents. The respondents argued that the petitioners had an alternate and efficacious remedy before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) and that the petitioners had not exhausted that remedy. The Court observed that the petitioners indeed have a pending matter before the AGRC, including issues of maintainability, limitation, and bonafide conduct, which are to be decided by that forum. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioners to file an appeal before the AGRC within two weeks and left all substantive contentions open for determination by the AGRC. The writ petition was therefore disposed of without adjudicating the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the existence of an alternate remedy before the AGRC
- Whether the petition is barred by limitation
- Whether the conduct of the petitioners is bonafide
Subjects
- writ petition
- alternative remedy
- maintainability
- limitation
- administrative law
- grievance redressal
Judgment
Digitally
Digitally
signed by signed
by MULEY
MULEY
SHUBHAM
MULEY
MULEY SHUBHAM
PRAVINRAO
SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO
SHUBHAM Date:
PRAVINRAODate:
PRAVINRAO 2026.05.15
2026.05.15
19:35:08
19:35:47
+0530
+0530
1 5-WP-6555-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6555 OF 2026
Dudham Harishchandra Bhaguji & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Collector Special Cell SRA & Ors. ...Respondents
-----------------
Ms. Sanjana Badsiwal a/w Sunil Badsiwal i/by Legal Pyramids for the
Petitioners.
Ms. Aarushi Yadav i/by Ravleen S. for Respondent No.1.
Mr. S. D. Dumbre for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Kirti Munshi, Senior Advocate i/by Mayur Thorat for Respondent No.3.
-----------------
CORAM : ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATED : 15 MAY, 2026
(VACATION COURT)
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. At the very outset, the learned
counsel for the Respondents including Mr. Munshi, learned senior counsel
for Respondent No.3 would submit that the Petitioner has an alternate and
efficacious remedy before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee. The
same for the reasons best known to the Petitioner is not exhausted. We find
prima facie merit in this submission. Mr. Munshi on instructions would
submit that as per the Petitioner’s own documents, the said premises are
also sold and not just that but the Petitioner has also applied for the
regularization of the said sold premises.
2. Be that as it may. This Court is not delving into these aspects of the
matter. The Appeal would be filed by the Petitioner before the AGRC within
Shubham 1/2
2 5-WP-6555-2026.doc
a period of two weeks from today. The AGRC would endeavour to hear and
decide the Appeal expeditiously.
3. It is made clear that all contentions of the parties are expressly kept
open including the issue of maintainability and limitation which would be
decided by the AGRC on its own merits and in accordance with law. Mr.
Munshi has submitted that the conduct of the Petitioner is not bonafide
which will also be examined by the AGRC on its own merits and in
accordance with law.
4. With the above observations, the Petition is disposed of.
5. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]
Shubham 2/2
Checking your session…