2026:BHC-OS:1414 Digitally IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY signed by TRUSHA TRUSHATUSHAR TUSHARMOHITE ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION MOHITEDate:

2026.01.19 17:47:16 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO.2892 OF 2025 Arvind Pravinkumar Mehta .. Petitioner Versus The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee .. Respondent Mr.Vishal Kanade and Mr.Janay Jain a/w Mr. Ashwin S. Tripathi, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. Aparna D. Vhatkar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1-AGRC Ms.Ravleen Sabharwal a/w Ms. Aarushi Yadav and Mr. Prakhar Tandon, Advocate for the Resondent Nos. 2 & 3-SRA Mr.Shashikant Surana a/w Mr. Madhur Surana, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4 CORAM: FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.

RESERVED ON: DECEMBER 17, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON: JANUARY 19, 2026 JUDGEMENT:-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of parties.

2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following final reliefs:

(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ / Order / Direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash, set aside the impugned order dated

06.05.2025 passed by respondent No.1 (Exhibit-C);

(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ / Order / Direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash, set aside the Impugned order dated 31.12.2024/ 01.01.2025, passed by the Respondent No.2 (Exhibit-A) and the Petitioner Petition may be allowed in the interest of justice;

(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain respondent No.3 from permitting any change/modification in the approved plan dated 19.05.2023 to the extent of shifting of permanent alternate accommodation of the petitioner from Shop No.3 of the subsisting approved plan to any other shop or portion of the rehabilitation building.”

3. Mr.Kanade, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, made submissions in support of the Petition.

4. Mr.Kanade submitted as follows:

a. As per Clause 5 of the Agreement dated 27^th January 2016 entered into between the erstwhile developer, the Respondent No.5 Society and the Petitioner, it was agreed that the Petitioner would be provided permanent alternate accommodation of commercial premises facing Khotkuwa Road.

b. Respondent No.4 was appointed as a Developer on 3^rd February 2023.

c. In May 2023, Respondent No.4 got approved plans which showed that the commercial premises in the Rehabilitation Building were facing the Khotkuwa Road.

d. The Petitioner did not vacate his temporary structure as he was not being provided permanent alternate accommodation facing Khotkuwa Road as per the Agreement dated 27^th January

2016 and the plans approved in May 2023.

e. Respondent No.4 submitted proposals dated 24^th July 2024 and 7^th October 2024 for taking action against the Petitioner under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement,. Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “Maharashtra Slum Act”).

f. Respondent No.2 issued a Notice dated 12^th November 2024 calling upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be evicted from the temporary structure occupied by him.

g. Before Respondent No.2, the Petitioner argued that the Rehabilitation building was 99% complete and that the Petitioner was ready to vacate his existing slum within 3 days. However, as per the approved layout dated 19^th May 2023, Respondent No.4 should allocate to the Petitioner commercial premises in the Rehabilitation building. However, Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were delaying the allotment of commercial premises shown in the approved layout i.e. commercial premises facing the Khotkuwa Road.

h. Before Respondent No.2, Respondent No.4 submitted that the Petitioner was not cooperating in the Rehabilitation Scheme. Despite being informed by way of letters to vacate his temporary structure, the Petitioner had remained un-cooperative. Due to the temporary structure of the Petitioner and some other persons, the CFO NOC was pending. Respondent N