NARESH PAUL PARMARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 7 ORS

                                                              18-wp 750-22.doc

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

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 750 OF 2022

Naresh Paul Parmar                                         … Petitioner
        Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                             ... Respondents

                       __________________________

Ms. Shakuntala A. Mudbidri for the Petitioner.
Mr. Suraj Gupte, AGP for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Nidhi Chauhan i/b Mr. Vishwanath Patil for Respondent Nos.3 & 4.
Mr. Johnson John for Respondent No.7.
Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) a/w. Mr. Abhijit Patil for Respondent
No.8.
                      __________________________

                                CORAM        : M. S. KARNIK AND
                                               S. M. MODAK, JJ.
                                DATED        : 8th APRIL, 2026.

ORAL ORDER (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.):

1.     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.     The joint family structure of the petitioner’s mother was held eligible

under adjoining Slum Rehabilitation Scheme of Shivneri Co-operative

Housing Society Ltd. The claim of the petitioner was mainly based on

Election Voting List of 01.01.1995.     By the impugned Order, based on

the order dated 29th September, 2008 passed             by the High Power

Committee on an application filed by Mr. Sadgun M. Parmar and 55 others

challenging the validity and legality of the Slum Scheme sanctioned by the

Slum Rehabilitation     Authority (for short ‘SRA’) and in view of the

 Amk                                                                  1/5
                                                               18-wp 750-22.doc

contention that bogus or no consent was obtained, the issue was re-

examined and by the impugned order dated 3 rd December, 2008, the SRA

held the petitioner to be not eligible under the Scheme.          The reasons

recorded are thus:-

       “Mr. Naresh P. Parmar was present for hearing.     Mr. Naresh P.
       Parmar is held eligible on the basis of Election Voting list of
       1/1/1995-36 Bandra–122-363-T-12.
             It is seen from the record that name of Mr. Naresh Paul
       Parmar and his mother Mrs. Nirmala Paul Parmar is shown in one
       structure in the voting list of 1/1/1995.   And Mrs. Nirmala P.
       Parmar has already sold her structure to one Mrs. Maria Fernandis
       who is already been held eligible under the adjoining Slum
       Rehabilitation Scheme of Shivneri CHS vide the order dated
       16/6/2003 by the Secretary SRA. Hence he is held non-eligible
       under the Scheme.”


3.     Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned

Order was passed even without hearing the petitioner, therefore, in breach

of principles of natural justice. Shri Reddy, learned counsel for the SRA

vehemently opposed the petition. It is submitted that the impugned Order

clearly reflects that the petitioner was present for the hearing. Reasons

have been assigned as to why the petitioner has been held to be not

eligible under the scheme. It is further submission of Shri Reddy that the

Order dated 3rd December, 2008 is challenged by the petitioner in this

petition only on 22nd October, 2021. According to Shri Reddy the petition


 Amk                                                                       2/5
                                                               18-wp 750-22.doc

is hopelessly barred by limitation and suffers from delay and laches.

5.     Learned counsel for the petitioner responded by contending that till

2016 she was in occupation of the subject structure which is alleged to

have been sold by the petitioner. The petitioner was not aware of the

Order passed by the SRA till 2016.        Thereafter, the petitioner made a

detailed representation to the Under Secretary, Department of Housing,

Government of Maharashtra on 1st October, 2019 for inquiry into the

Annexure-II wherein two persons are held eligible in lieu of one hutment in

two different Slum Redevelopment Scheme/Projects.                 In the said

representation, the petitioner has stated that a fraud has been committed

in implementation of the scheme. It is further stated that the voters list

and electrical bill are prima-facie evidence that the petitioner is hutment

dweller in the scheme of Pali Pereirawadi SRA CHS Ltd located on 30 th

road and not Shivneri SRA SRA CHS Ltd which is located on 29th road.

6.     The State of Maharashtra had informed the Additional Collector

(Encroachment) to take appropriate action on the representation preferred

by the petitioner by the communication dated 13 th December, 2019.

Though learned counsel Shri Reddy submitted that the petitioner was duly

heard, however, in paragraph No.7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has

averred as under:-

       “7.   The petitioner states that from the period 18 th March 2006 to
       23rd December 2008 the petitioner was not in India. However, the


 Amk                                                                     3/5
                                                                 18-wp 750-22.doc

       Hon’ble High Power Committee/Respondent No.8 by its Report dated
       3rd December 2008 wrongly held that the petitioner was present for
       hearing and recorded a finding that the name of the petitioner’s
       mother Mrs. Nirmala Paul Parmar, hutment No.T-12, is shown under
       the S.R. Scheme of Respondent No.6-Shivneri SRA CHS Ltd. in the
       Supplementary Annexure dated 16th June 2003 issued and certified
       by the Secretary, SRA-Respondent No.4 and further held that the
       petitioner’s mother Nirmala Paul Parmar had already sold her
       hutment in Respondent No.6-Shivneri CHS Ltd. to one Mrs. Maria
       Fernandes-Respondent No.7 by executing an Affidavit dated 8 th June
       1993 and hence the petitioner is to be held non-eligible in
       Respondent No.5 S.R. Scheme.        As per the said report dated 3 rd
       December 2008, a total of 22 slum dwellers were held non-eligible
       under the said Scheme of Respondent No.5-Society including the
       petitioner at serial No.27 of the said Report.”


7.     The petitioner has relied upon a copy of the passport to indicate that

the petitioner was not in India on the date when it is stated the petitioner

was heard.

8.     Considering that the petitioner was pursuing the matter with the

State Government and even as the State Government had called upon the

Additional Collector to examine the complaint made by the petitioner, in

our opinion, without going into the adverting in detail to the issue whether

the petitioner was present for the hearing or not, in the interest of justice

and with a view to give an opportunity to the petitioner to present his case,

the impugned order so far as the petitioner is concerned is set aside.



 Amk                                                                      4/5
                                                                 18-wp 750-22.doc

9.     The Secretary, the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (for short

‘AGRC’) to re-hear the petitioner and pass fresh orders in accordance with

law.

10.    The petitioner to appear before the Secretary, AGRC on 21st April,

2026 along with a copy of this Order.

11.    Let the matter be considered afresh by the Secretary, AGRC within a

period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the Order.

12.    If the petitioner is held to be eligible, the question of further

consequences will arise which the SRA shall obviously look into and take

appropriate steps only so far as this petitioner is concerned.

13.    We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the

merits of the contentions. Keeping all contentions open, the petition is

disposed of.



(S. M. MODAK, J.)                                          (M. S. KARNIK, J.)




 Amk                                                                     5/5