Tulsidas Nair v. Ttate Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.16397 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.583 OF 2026 Tulsidas Nair, Age 46 years, Occ.Business, R/o.Flat no.302, 3rd floor, Shri Ganasiddhi Vinayak CHS Ltd;

Padve Wadi, Dilip Gupte Marg, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016.

Petitioner versus

1. The State of Maharashtra

2. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Bandra East, Mumbai.

3. Dr.Mahendra Kalyankar, CEO, SRA, Mumbai.

4. Ms.Sandhya Bawankule, Assistant Registrar, SRA, Mumbai.

Respondents _______ Mr.M.V.Holamagi for Petitioner.

Ms.Kavita N.Solunke, Additional Govt.Pleader with Smt.S.A.Prabhune, AGP, for State.

Mr.Naushad Engineer, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Amar Anand, Ms.Aarushi Yadav, Mr.Aatish Tayade i/by Ms.Ravleen Sabharwal for Respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 SRA. Mr.Aaditya Gore for Intervenors.

_______

CORAM:

G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ.

DATE:

29th January 2026 P.C.

1.

We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE Date: 2026.02.02 16:06:07 +0530 MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE for Respondents on the present petition. We have also perused the orders passed

by this Court in the previous writ petition (Writ Petition No.8304 of 2025, dated 8th October 2025) wherein the Court accepted the request of the Petitioner to permit him to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (`AGRC').

2.

It is not in dispute that subsequent to the said order, the Petitioner has already taken recourse to the Appellate Authority by filing an appeal before the AGRC, a copy of the same is annexed to the reply affidavit filed by the Respondents (page 279). We find that the prayers as made in the petition are similar to that of the prayers made in the appeal, which is subject matter of consideration before the AGRC. In the aforesaid circumstances we are of the clear opinion that all contentions which are raised by the Petitioner in the present petition, are certainly available to the Petitioner to be raised before the AGRC including the contention in regard to one of the member of the AGRC whether needs to recuse and replaced by another member. We keep all contentions open including the contentions of the Petitioner on merits, as also the contentions of Respondents.

3.

We direct the AGRC to hear the Petitioner on the appeal and make an endeavour to pass final orders not latter than eight weeks from today. 4.

At this stage we are informed by Mr.Engineer that the AGRC has convened a meeting on 6th February 2026. We permit the Petitioner at the first instance to appear before the AGRC on the 6th February 2026 so that the AGRC can fix an appropriate date when the proceedings can be taken up and final orders can be passed.

5.

The Petitioner is also at liberty to seek interim relief in the said pending appeal.

6.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Interim Application No.583 of 2026 would not survive and stands disposed of. (AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)