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 : 8 th 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 3rd 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 30th 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 13th 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 18th 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 8th 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 3rd 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