Pradip Sarfare v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority Through Its Chief Executive Officer

8.WP.418.2026.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.418 OF 2026

1. Pradip Sarfare,

2. Mario Lonappa,

3. Prakash Gosavi,

4. Babu Rajaram Dayal,

5. Waman LaluDhondge all R/o.Bandra West, Mumbai-400050 Petitioners versus

1. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority through its Chief Executive Officer

2. M/s.Hare Krishna Developers,

3. Aai Kadeshwari SRA Ch-op.Hsg.Society Limited Respondents _______ Mr.ohammad M.Abdi for Petitioner.

Mr.Aneish Jadhav with Ms.BhairaviShah i/by Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Respondentno.2.

Ms.Aarushi Yadavi i/by Ms.Ravleen Sabharwal for Respondent SRA. _______

CORAM:

G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ.

DATE:

28th January 2026 P.C.

1.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the only substantive relief, which reads thus : "a. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent no.1 to expedite the adjudication and disposal of the Petitioner's pending complaint/application dated 28th November 2025, filed u/s.13(2) of the Slum Act (at Exhibit E in the petition) against Respondent no.2, in a time bound manner."

MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE Date: 2026.01.28 18:13:39 +0530 MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE M.S.Thatte

8.WP.418.2026.DOC 2.

The only grievance of the Petitioner in the present petition is inaction on the part of Respondent no.2 in not deciding/adjudicating Petitioner's pending complaint/application dated 28th November 2025 under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slum Act). It is the Petitioner's anxiety that if the aforesaid complaint/application is not decided, then grave prejudice will be caused to the Petitioner. The said application needs to be taken to its logical conclusion and the same is required to be decided as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 3.

In our opinion, considering the limited relief that the Petitioners seek in the petition and although there being no written opposition/reply of the Respondents, considering the nature of the orders we propose to pass, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents. The following order would serve the ends of justice :-

ORDER

(i) The Respondent no.1 Chief Executive Officer of Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall consider and decide the pending application/complaint of the Petitioner dated 28th November 2025 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date this order is made available to the said authority by the Petitioner; (ii) Let all parties be heard;

(iii) All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open; (iv) The writ petition is disposed of in above terms. No costs. (AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) M.S.Thatte